ThinkingSapien
@thinkingsapien.bsky.social
Given the outcome of the ChatGPT defamation case, I think that the generative AI suppliers will be okay. As for other service providers, "amplified" is a bit nebulous. I think it can make for an ambiguous law.
reason.com/wp-content/u...
reason.com/wp-content/u...
October 30, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Given the outcome of the ChatGPT defamation case, I think that the generative AI suppliers will be okay. As for other service providers, "amplified" is a bit nebulous. I think it can make for an ambiguous law.
reason.com/wp-content/u...
reason.com/wp-content/u...
If the young people like it, it must be bad. Once again, I’m thinking of the books my parents’ church pulled into from to tell us what toys not to play with and what cartoons to not watch so that we would not burn in hell.
October 26, 2025 at 12:38 PM
If the young people like it, it must be bad. Once again, I’m thinking of the books my parents’ church pulled into from to tell us what toys not to play with and what cartoons to not watch so that we would not burn in hell.
That still sounds messy. Since attention is a zero-sum game, any lowering of a ranking of one post elevates the comparative ranking of others. The Patterson decision from a couple of months ago noted the necessity of doing this.
September 17, 2025 at 2:04 AM
That still sounds messy. Since attention is a zero-sum game, any lowering of a ranking of one post elevates the comparative ranking of others. The Patterson decision from a couple of months ago noted the necessity of doing this.
Affirmation of the right to speak anonymously predates the Internet (as do attempts at abuses by govt to disallow anonymous comments to suppress minority views). Jess Kosseff has a great book on the caselaw in this area.
September 15, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Affirmation of the right to speak anonymously predates the Internet (as do attempts at abuses by govt to disallow anonymous comments to suppress minority views). Jess Kosseff has a great book on the caselaw in this area.
Joke's on them! I use unique passwords on each site!
Flip side, I don't actually know any of my passwords!
www.msn.com/en-us/news/t...
#Security #Passwords #DataBreach
Flip side, I don't actually know any of my passwords!
www.msn.com/en-us/news/t...
#Security #Passwords #DataBreach
June 20, 2025 at 8:31 PM
Joke's on them! I use unique passwords on each site!
Flip side, I don't actually know any of my passwords!
www.msn.com/en-us/news/t...
#Security #Passwords #DataBreach
Flip side, I don't actually know any of my passwords!
www.msn.com/en-us/news/t...
#Security #Passwords #DataBreach
Wow! It only needed a single 9-volt battery!
June 4, 2025 at 7:46 PM
Wow! It only needed a single 9-volt battery!
Generally, deciding how content will be arranged on a website or feed is protected by Amendment One. The govt forcing a site to adopt specific methods of arrangement or denying the protection of the law for not doing so is the conflict.
April 16, 2025 at 6:29 PM
Generally, deciding how content will be arranged on a website or feed is protected by Amendment One. The govt forcing a site to adopt specific methods of arrangement or denying the protection of the law for not doing so is the conflict.
April 9, 2025 at 11:22 PM
April 8, 2025 at 4:37 PM
March 12, 2025 at 3:42 PM
February 28, 2025 at 3:35 PM
That's technically correct, which is the best type of correct! lol.
I understand it as an idiom. The usage diverges from regular usage of the individual words.
I understand it as an idiom. The usage diverges from regular usage of the individual words.
February 22, 2025 at 6:05 PM
That's technically correct, which is the best type of correct! lol.
I understand it as an idiom. The usage diverges from regular usage of the individual words.
I understand it as an idiom. The usage diverges from regular usage of the individual words.
You are referring to §230, not the DMCA. The DMCA is concerned with copyright.
Though §230 isn't a defense for criminal claims, it can defend from civil claims that might arise from the unlawful actions of another.
There is no obligation to be fair and balanced.
Though §230 isn't a defense for criminal claims, it can defend from civil claims that might arise from the unlawful actions of another.
There is no obligation to be fair and balanced.
February 21, 2025 at 1:27 PM
You are referring to §230, not the DMCA. The DMCA is concerned with copyright.
Though §230 isn't a defense for criminal claims, it can defend from civil claims that might arise from the unlawful actions of another.
There is no obligation to be fair and balanced.
Though §230 isn't a defense for criminal claims, it can defend from civil claims that might arise from the unlawful actions of another.
There is no obligation to be fair and balanced.
That's not an issue from §230. That's an issue from Amendment One. Jeff Kosseff wrote a book that gives a great collection and explanation of the caselaw of Amendment One protecting misinformation.
February 18, 2025 at 4:17 AM
That's not an issue from §230. That's an issue from Amendment One. Jeff Kosseff wrote a book that gives a great collection and explanation of the caselaw of Amendment One protecting misinformation.
It also puts liability one one that may not have materially contributed to the unlawfulness of a post.
February 9, 2025 at 12:41 PM
It also puts liability one one that may not have materially contributed to the unlawfulness of a post.
They **are** publishers. The communicate or make info available to others.
From the court case Zeran v AOL: "AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by § 230's immunity."
From the court case Zeran v AOL: "AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by § 230's immunity."
February 9, 2025 at 12:38 PM
They **are** publishers. The communicate or make info available to others.
From the court case Zeran v AOL: "AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by § 230's immunity."
From the court case Zeran v AOL: "AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by § 230's immunity."
§230 doesn't make one not a publisher. It prevents them from being **treated** as **the** publisher of info that came from someone else.
Zeran v AOL:
"AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by § 230's immunity."
Zeran v AOL:
"AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by § 230's immunity."
February 9, 2025 at 12:52 AM
§230 doesn't make one not a publisher. It prevents them from being **treated** as **the** publisher of info that came from someone else.
Zeran v AOL:
"AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by § 230's immunity."
Zeran v AOL:
"AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by § 230's immunity."
February 8, 2025 at 1:57 PM
From the court case Zeran v AOL: "AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by § 230's immunity."
February 6, 2025 at 12:30 PM
From the court case Zeran v AOL: "AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by § 230's immunity."
...In NetChoice v Attorney General of Texas, Texas tried to hinge liability on using automated screening of content. The court didn't distinguish between human v automated decisions.
February 5, 2025 at 2:42 PM
...In NetChoice v Attorney General of Texas, Texas tried to hinge liability on using automated screening of content. The court didn't distinguish between human v automated decisions.
Any legislation is constrained by 1A. Jeff Kosseff wrote a fantastic book on the history of 1A protecting conveyance of false information (including blocking legislation, such as the Stolen Valor act).
February 3, 2025 at 6:09 PM
Any legislation is constrained by 1A. Jeff Kosseff wrote a fantastic book on the history of 1A protecting conveyance of false information (including blocking legislation, such as the Stolen Valor act).
I don't think it is health. But lies and hateful speech are generally protected by Amendment One. Some time last year, NY and CA tried making some laws against "dangerous" and radicalizing speech, only for the laws to be enjoined because of 1A.
January 17, 2025 at 5:13 PM
I don't think it is health. But lies and hateful speech are generally protected by Amendment One. Some time last year, NY and CA tried making some laws against "dangerous" and radicalizing speech, only for the laws to be enjoined because of 1A.
January 16, 2025 at 2:44 PM
January 1, 2025 at 12:54 PM