Section 230 is in trouble -- at last !

[ericbarbour]

Well looks like at least one rich shithead lost their battle for their pet peeve
https://www.surfrider.org/news/us-supre ... ach-access

That was in 2018, when there was a slug of coverage. But it was not settled yet.

The state sued in January 2020.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/06/ ... ic-access/
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... ia-lawsuit

Khosla countersued the state and the county sheriff.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/ne ... y-sheriff/

Since then media coverage of the fight has been nonexistent. No word of any settlement or trial date. I wonder if he sent legal threats to the media to silence them, because "embarrassing", thus no coverage since 2020. If you're rich enough you can fight anything to a standstill. Section 230 be damned?

Court documents say "other pending".
https://unicourt.com/case/ca-sm-califor ... -al-754193

[ericbarbour]

Blah blah blah on and on.....

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/02/hil ... 0-must-go/

[ericbarbour]

Techdirt gives WMF "VP of Global Advocacy" Rebecca MacKinnon a podcast entry to spew the usual nuance-free Wikipedia propaganda and deplore Section 230 repeal attempts. Sometimes this smells like a religious war; neither side shows any "nuance" about the dispute.

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/16/tec ... wikipedia/

Note that MacKinnon is a longtime Berkman Center "fellow", was connected to the New America Foundation, and was on the WMF's now-defunct-I-guess "Advisory Board". Yes, her Wikipedia bio was edited by herself and her WMF pals. She's a ruthless self-promoter, but a poor public speaker. Why in the hell are they sending her out to speak for them?

The WMF is just like any other corporation, for profit or not; the asslickers rise to the top.

12:47, 16 February 2007 diff hist −71‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎ ←Undid revision 108591473 by Rmackinnon (talk)
12:44, 16 February 2007 diff hist +71‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎No edit summary
04:04, 16 February 2007 diff hist +85‎ N User talk:Rmackinnon ‎ ←Created page with 'Sorry for vandalizing my own article - was demonstrating something to my students. '
04:03, 16 February 2007 diff hist −113‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎No edit summary
04:00, 16 February 2007 diff hist +67‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎No edit summary
03:59, 16 February 2007 diff hist +46‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎No edit summary
06:14, 19 January 2007 diff hist −11‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎No edit summary
06:14, 19 January 2007 diff hist +199‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎No edit summary
22:14, 9 October 2006 diff hist +73‎ User:Rmackinnon ‎No edit summary
22:14, 9 October 2006 diff hist +78‎ N User:Rmackinnon ‎No edit summary
04:39, 22 September 2006 diff hist −11‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎ →‎Early life
23:28, 15 September 2006 diff hist 0‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎ →‎Early life
23:27, 15 September 2006 diff hist +9‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎ →‎Early life
23:26, 15 September 2006 diff hist +37‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎ →‎Early life
23:26, 15 September 2006 diff hist +290‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎ →‎Early life
23:21, 15 September 2006 diff hist +21‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎ →‎News
23:20, 15 September 2006 diff hist +2‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎ →‎News
23:19, 15 September 2006 diff hist +126‎ Rebecca MacKinnon ‎ →‎Recent life and work

[journo]

Techdirt gives WMF "VP of Global Advocacy" Rebecca MacKinnon a podcast entry to spew the usual nuance-free Wikipedia propaganda

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/16/tec ... wikipedia/

Was waiting for her to falsely imply that Wikipedia is the same as a government run entity that is in charge of enforcing free speech laws. And she did it! Around 43:00! She insinuates Wikipedia is the internet equivalent of a public park.

While people want Wikipedia to be like a public good like a public park, it will always fail at that goal because it's not run by the government. Non-governmental entities can't claim to be protectors of free speech the way public parks are. Free speech exists as a matter of government enforcement and planning, not as a matter of communities setting up spaces in private places which lie about being public.

If she wants Wikipedia to be a public good, she would advocate the US government run it, where there likely would be much less abiility for Wikipedia to be hyper-ableist, bigoted, and haphazardly sanction people based on whims.

Another thing she misses out on, is that virtually no, actual (government run) public spaces have policies to treat their spaces like Wikileaks. They don't go out of their way to hide their users from lawsuits or law enforcement.

Regardless, Wikipedia wants to be seen both as Wikileaks and as a government run public space. They can't have it both ways.

[Bbb23sucks]

While people want Wikipedia to be like a public good like a public park, it will always fail at that goal because isn't because it's not run by the government. Non-governmental entities can't claim to be protectors of free speech the way public parks are. Free speech exists as a matter of government enforcement and planning, not as a matter of communities setting up spaces in private places which lie about being public.

This is one of the growing contradictions of western liberal democracy. As capital continues to centralize, the monopoly financiers necessarily act like governments (to the point where people are even suggested they be given representation at the UN). While some radical liberals may scoff at these articles - but their central point isn't really wrong. These liberals, however, are afraid of the consequences that recognizing these international monopolies as state-like entities may entail, so instead they distract away with trivial concerns like "billionaires". The truth is that these monopolies will only become bigger and have more power. However liberals cannot recognize this as an unavoidable fact as it would be with odds with their self-professed ideals of "democracy".

Any real solutions to this would involve democratizing and consolidating these organizations and destroying the distinction between "public" and "private" to be build a collective and centrally planned democratic society. This, however, is exactly what the bourgeoisie of monopoly capital seek to fight against as it would be the end of them.

[ericbarbour]

Was waiting for her to falsely imply that Wikipedia is the same as a government run entity that is in charge of enforcing free speech laws. And she did it! Around 43:00! She insinuates Wikipedia is the internet equivalent of a public park.

More like a public toilet. Someone has to clean it. And nobody wants to.

Regardless, Wikipedia wants to be seen both as Wikileaks and as a government run public space. They can't have it both ways.

No, but they can lie about it to their "cult followers".