Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Culture
Public figures
The Sargon of Akkad thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Leonard D Neubache" data-source="post: 1175974" data-attributes="member: 11069"><p><strong>RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>These are valuable alternative options, but the term alternative in this case is not synonymous with equal. In pre-1990 terms it's the equivalent of being blacklisted by print media conglomerates and deciding to run your laser printer night and day to keep a few thousand people on snail-mail updates. In pre-2000 terms it's like having your web-site shut down and being forced to distribute your message through an extensive email list which can only grow by word of mouth.</p><p></p><p>What is genuinely needed is a landmark case through the SCOTUS that establishes whether places like Youtube are "First Ammendment Zones" or <em>not</em>. If not then that needs to be established <em>firmly</em> because Youtube wouldn't be able to have it both ways. If Youtube is not just a massive and ongoing open-mike night then they are fundamentally liable for every video posted, which should open them to roughly a metric shit-ton of slander suits. </p><p></p><p>Technically if some whack-job from Portland posts a video which levels slander against Roosh (for example) then Youtube is liable, since they specifically claim ownership of all content <em>anyway</em> and functionally they're the ones broadcasting it. It would be the equivalent of a free-to-air television station broadcasting a recording of a homeless man levelling slander against <em>whoever</em> and thinking they could wash their hands of it "because we're technically not an affiliate of that homeless man". </p><p></p><p>No dice. I think that the only power the little guys have to at least bring these digital megacorps to heel is to toss law-suits at them <em>for everything</em>.</p><p></p><p>Google has already been successfully sued for slander a number of times in many regions and districts because <em>their</em> search page turned up a result with associated text from some podunk blog that claimed "person x did y". It didn't matter that nobody at Google penned the article that the search engine dredged up. The words turned up on <a href="http://www.google.com/etcetcetc" target="_blank">www.google.com/etcetcetc</a> so Google was found liable, which is perfectly fair when you think about it. </p><p></p><p>If some podunk blogger wrote an article titled "Leonard D Neubache raped a dog" then nobody but the readership would see it. But Google allows for that podunk blog to spread slander merely by searching for "Leonard D Neubache" and even if nobody was searching for a dog-rape story, the first return on page one would be the words "Leonard D Neubache raped a dog". </p><p></p><p>This is a case where we need more law suits, not less. Death by a thousand cuts, even if the plaintiffs only break even. This is even open to serious abuse. Start an anonymous channel and spread slander on the back of a trending issue on behalf of your fellow thought-criminal, allowing them to instantly start litigation proceedings.</p><p></p><p>In time Google et al would be <em>begging</em> to fire their censors in return for First Amendment protections.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Leonard D Neubache, post: 1175974, member: 11069"] [b]RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.[/b] These are valuable alternative options, but the term alternative in this case is not synonymous with equal. In pre-1990 terms it's the equivalent of being blacklisted by print media conglomerates and deciding to run your laser printer night and day to keep a few thousand people on snail-mail updates. In pre-2000 terms it's like having your web-site shut down and being forced to distribute your message through an extensive email list which can only grow by word of mouth. What is genuinely needed is a landmark case through the SCOTUS that establishes whether places like Youtube are "First Ammendment Zones" or [i]not[/i]. If not then that needs to be established [i]firmly[/i] because Youtube wouldn't be able to have it both ways. If Youtube is not just a massive and ongoing open-mike night then they are fundamentally liable for every video posted, which should open them to roughly a metric shit-ton of slander suits. Technically if some whack-job from Portland posts a video which levels slander against Roosh (for example) then Youtube is liable, since they specifically claim ownership of all content [i]anyway[/i] and functionally they're the ones broadcasting it. It would be the equivalent of a free-to-air television station broadcasting a recording of a homeless man levelling slander against [i]whoever[/i] and thinking they could wash their hands of it "because we're technically not an affiliate of that homeless man". No dice. I think that the only power the little guys have to at least bring these digital megacorps to heel is to toss law-suits at them [i]for everything[/i]. Google has already been successfully sued for slander a number of times in many regions and districts because [i]their[/i] search page turned up a result with associated text from some podunk blog that claimed "person x did y". It didn't matter that nobody at Google penned the article that the search engine dredged up. The words turned up on [URL="http://www.google.com/etcetcetc"]www.google.com/etcetcetc[/URL] so Google was found liable, which is perfectly fair when you think about it. If some podunk blogger wrote an article titled "Leonard D Neubache raped a dog" then nobody but the readership would see it. But Google allows for that podunk blog to spread slander merely by searching for "Leonard D Neubache" and even if nobody was searching for a dog-rape story, the first return on page one would be the words "Leonard D Neubache raped a dog". This is a case where we need more law suits, not less. Death by a thousand cuts, even if the plaintiffs only break even. This is even open to serious abuse. Start an anonymous channel and spread slander on the back of a trending issue on behalf of your fellow thought-criminal, allowing them to instantly start litigation proceedings. In time Google et al would be [i]begging[/i] to fire their censors in return for First Amendment protections. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Culture
Public figures
The Sargon of Akkad thread
Top
