text
stringlengths 0
23.7k
| label
stringclasses 4
values | dataType
stringclasses 2
values | communityName
stringclasses 4
values | datetime
stringclasses 95
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
The law works that way _because of section 230 of the Online Decency Act of 1996_.
If you remove this part then Reddit is responsible for every download of any illegal material as well as hosting it even IF they removed it.
You _really_ are far off the mark here because your whole argument depends on retaining the thing you say we can get rid of. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
We already have rules and regulations for these nuances. This isn't some kind of black and white thing. Sites get tapped to shut shit down ALL THE TIME. But gutting 230 completely will just make the internet disappear. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Are you a fucking idiot?
Please read like, literally any of these comments responding to you explaining what 230 is and why Reddit would not exist if it expires. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
"Platforms like Wikipedia and YT will simply decentralize."
I asked elsewhere if you were a fucking idiot. Should have read this first because it makes it pretty clear... | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
> Removing 230 would mean you could be held accountable for things sent to your email.
Section 230 doesn't protect you for *receiving* other people's content, it protects you when you *publish* other's content. If you were to forward someone's email then you could be held liable without Section 230, but simply receiving an email wouldn't be within Section 230's immunity. Simply receiving probably wouldn't incur much liability - e.g. you can't sue someone for *hearing* a defamatory statement, only for making/publishing one.
> Should you serve time because you got spammed illegal porn?
Section 230 provides only a civil immunity. It has no effect on criminal law and wouldn't in any respects stop you from serving time. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Because we have freedom of speech. And the state or any other entity using the law to punish companies for the speech of someone on their platform is the anti-thesis of free speech. It’s like suing McDonalds for having people picketing on the sidewalk against a social issue. It’s a round about way of using creative lawyering to punish Americans for exercising their rights. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Would a decentralized anonymous internet thwart this in any way? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Section 230 protects publishers from criminal prosecution in regards to illegal materials uploaded by others. It is not purely a civil protection. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
There are specific provisions in the "reasonable" language that puts *more* burden on larger companies. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
No, you’re misunderstanding, section 230s repeal will immediately result in the courts having to actually make decisions regarding constitutional questions associated with the first amendment, who has standing and who does not, and a variety of other concerns. Right now section 230 lets courts hand wave these issues.
You’re also ignoring everything else I said surrounding algorithmic amplification and whether these companies serve as publishers or distributers. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
yeah, because they're making editorial choices about what's included.
magazine and book publishers are not just random platforms. They are intentionally curated.
you're comparing two things that are not the same and expecting me to pretend they are the same. I am not going to do that. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
So having and enforcing a Terms of Use and Acceptable Use Policy isn't exercising editorial control? Using an algorithm to promote specific content and actively diminish the reach of other content isn't exercising editorial control? In cases of political forums and websites, requiring a specific political slant and actively removing content of a different political slant isn't exercising editorial control? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
> Here I was hoping that with AI the internet would be segmented Cyberpunk 2077 style.
Could you explain, please? I've played Cyberpunk 2077 a little, but don't get how it was segmented there.
Besides, I don't think AI has found it's niche in the internet (and economy in general) yet.
> You can almost tell Japanese sites apart from others just by style alone
Yes, it's like visiting another planet. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
> having and enforcing a Terms of Use and Acceptable Use Policy isn't exercising editorial control?
correct. This is *reactive*, not *proactive*.
>Using an algorithm to promote specific content and actively diminish the reach of other content isn't exercising editorial control?
see above.
>In cases of political forums and websites, requiring a specific political slant and actively removing content of a different political slant isn't exercising editorial control?
see above.
230 was created to release liability for one very specific reason: owning and operating a publicly accessible website means that the volume of content you ingest can be **literally impossible** to manage.
you can react to it, but being **proactive** would mean that the website is functionally not publicly accessible.
does that make sense? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
>The idea that the platforms can’t be bothered to audit the content of user posts for safety concerns, but have the ability to audit posts to tailor the user experience and maximize profit, is absurd.
If you understand how these algorithms work, it's not absurd.
The recommendation algorithms don't actually know the content of anything they're recommending to you. They're mostly making recommendations based on the other things you and others have seen.
For example, if you've liked posts A, B, and C, and 95% of people who have also liked A, B, and C and have seen D have liked D, the algorithm assumes you'll like D as well. It's this principle, but with way larger samples, and it works. The algorithm doesn't know what's in A, B, and C, except stuff like the title, length, caption, time posted, account it's from, etc. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
230 isn't just about copyrights or illegal stuff. It's also about defamation. If YouTube wants to have content moderation all (including removing spammers, scammers, porn, ISIS beheading videos, etc), if 230 isn't around then YouTube would be risking liability for any defamation that any users posts. There is no way that YouTube would be able to let people post videos, other than maybe a handful of extremely popular creators. There are hundreds of hours of video uploaded every minute right now. Even just to watch the videos (at 2x speed) would require YouTube to have something like 50,000 full time employees. If they wanted to ensure that none of the videos were defamatory, that would mean tens of thousands of lawyers watching videos in shifts, round the clock, including weekends and holidays. Paying those lawyers would cost literally billions of dollars. And there's still a decent chance of getting sued and having to pay out. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
> But if they have the ability to suggest content, and otherwise manipulate the user’s feed algorithmically for profit-based reasons, then they most definitely have the ability to audit the content of user posts for public-safety reasons
That doesn't really follow. If a comment is wrongfully evaluated as high or low on the "profit" scale, the worst that happens is a small amount of profit lost (for individual posts it's probably fractions of a penny, if anything). Under your proposal, it looks like if a company fucks up even one "public safety" post, they'd be facing a very expensive federal investigation and trial.
And then you have to figure out what you mean by "harmful content" and define it in a way that doesn't infringe on the first amendment. Nazi hate speech is undoubtedly harmful, but there's no way that a law punishing Facebook for not doing enough to curb Nazi hate speech would be allowable under Brandenburg v. Ohio. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
It would kill Reddit, Twitch, Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, YouTube, any site that has a forum of any sort. If anyone in the US owns a website that people can post anything on is screwed.
I guess they could give up all content moderation, but all those services will become useless trash. Shit posting would become insane.
Imagine YouTube, Google cannot allow uploads(would kill YouTube) or allow all and not make any money from Ads because no way Coca Cola will allow their product to show if it has just as much chance playing before a movie trailer or on a Holocaust denier video.
Would that mean that foreign corporations can be sued if they let US citizens post to their site if they have any business presence in the US? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
I did read the article I linked yes.
It suggests things like establishing a duty of care that websites would be liable if a 3rd party user posted something that caused harm, such as something inciting, or an illegal video.
So again:
> There are more than 300,000 hours of video uploaded every hour to YouTube, and a huge number of comments per second to Reddit. You are suggesting that YouTube and Reddit would have to hire people to review all 300,000 hours of video uploaded per hour, and huge number of comments per second, before they would be posted, to make sure it doesn’t contain anything “harmful”? (And if they missed something in those manual reviews, would they be liable? And where is the line for harm? Libel? Posting something that is protected by copyright?) Etc. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Look, I don’t have all the answers. No one does. But congress is likely to strip 230 out because of the highly visible abuses. The net is gonna have to adapt. The difference between you and me (and many, many others) is that I can already see the direction in which it’s going to have to go. Programming will evolve, solutions will emerge, and things will be different. Better? Worse? Who knows but it’s gonna be different. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
> It’s easy enough for the algorithm to scan the content, make determinations of whether this is illegal, and then make a determination to distribute or not distribute based on the legality of the content.
This is not easy at all. There is no algorithm that can determine if a post is defamatory or not. Look at some of the recent defamation trials that have made news recently, like take the johnny depp vs amber heard trial, for example. If Amber had posted her article on Reddit instead of The Sun, how could an algorithm or even a human moderator know for sure that it was defamatory? The courts take years adjudicating these issues to finally come to a determination on whether something is defamatory, and people still disagree about whether they got it right. And you want an algorithm to do it for millions of posts a day. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Oooh, selective editing of Wikipedia article, how novel.
The context you stripped from the post you made was that this discussion happened as a version of a CDA (a government act) pushed by Senator Exon would have a first amendment claim... You know... Government limits to speech and compelling speech...
Treated as publisher opens them to private liability, the two are two different things you are trying to Frankenstein together | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
The fact that these words somehow "created the internet" , I would welcome its demise | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Go read the first comments quote, if that gets removed and you watch a pirated movie online from someone that publishes it, you can be charged for it without that sentence as the user. "No publisher or *user* ..." | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
My interpretation isn't different from Wikipedia's nor is the article misleading, you just stopped reading at the first paragraph. If you had continued to the appropriately named [Applications **and Limits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Application_and_limits) section you would have read:
> Section 230 immunity is not unlimited. The statute specifically excepts federal criminal liability (§230(e)(1))
The text it is referring with that bracketed part is:
> (e) Effect on other laws
> (1) No effect on criminal law
> Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
>\- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Child pornography is covered by federal criminal statute (see 18 U.S. Code § 2252A), and therefore Section 230 has "no effect" on it. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
You don’t see shit, idiot.
What your smooth-brained ass fails to understand is that the government using its power to stop that is far more damaging, as you’ve just given them a fantastic weapon for silencing dissent. Next thing you know, calling trump an idiot or dangerous is “slander.”
The assholes running the magaverse are playing you for an idiot and you’re happily proving them right.
I’m so fucking done with this country and the idiots filling it. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-06-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
|
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
|
Great, it's all fauxpaux | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
No. They're in trouble because they spent decades upon decades artificially restricting supply to keep the price so high that it became more economically feasible to just make them instead. Congratulations you played yourself | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Excellent, fuck the blood diamond industry. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Maybe so, but made millions they would otherwise not have made. No market lasts for ever…. Even if diamonds are… | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Well pretty sure lab grown means no blood was involved lol | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
That's why I said excellent. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Oh no!
Anyhow... | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
They're not in what I'd call trouble. They just aren't the monopoly they were for so long. A documentary I saw last year said 10-20% of the diamonds on the market were lab grown. That was ok because people were still paying high prices. Now, they are paying less because there are more options.
Wonder how long before they'll offer their stockpile of natural diamonds for deep discounts. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
They make diamonds from loved ones. If you used your enemies as the source material, you could have organic and blood diamonds at the same time. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
The funny thing about the diamond industry is that the prices are rigged. The world produces more than enough diamonds, actually to the point where they don’t actually have that much worth. But their release into the market is carefully controlled to maintain high prices. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
I couldn't even find a ring that wasn't super tacky for that price. The one I ended up proposing with was all lab grown stones to symbolize how it's her and I up against the world, and even nature bends to serve us. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Good. They should. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Give me butt diamonds... “A real tight ass worked this gem for several months. It’s magnificent. Go ahead—try it on.” | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
I love this | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
I hope millennials get the blame for this too, fuck them diamonds | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Fucking hubris there woow | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Billions* the trouble is, once you get to that point, you have to continue otherwise your company implodes and you lose your job. Capitalism. You'd think they'd be happy with wealth they could never physically spend, but no, keep wanting more. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Thanks Captain obvious | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
*Artisanally mined | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
They had an amazing run and should shut the fuck up before everyone who didnt already know they were a soulless scam googles why the fuck we care about diamonds in the first place. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
The only industry that deserves to die more than the diamond industry - is Ticketmaster! | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
<in1990s>Strive for only the perfect diamond for your perfect love, don't settle for flawed, is your relationship?
<in2020s>¡Absolute perfection is artificial and unnatural! ¿Is your love synthetic? ¿Why should you diamond be? ¡The inherent imperfections of a diamond are just like your love, naturally occurring! | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
You mean that shitty little campaign they’ve been running didn’t work? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Good. Screw 'em. Who cares. It's a pure luxury good whose significance is more or less obsolete. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Oh noes. People prefer their shiny rocks come from a lab rather than conflict and blood. Apparently you can get shiny rocks without all that suffering. How ever will they keep the price for their shiny rocks arbitrarily high? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Allow me to play the world's smallest violin. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
So, carbon-based diamonds? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Cool. A pure waste of money for a pure waste of energy. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Lemme get my tiniest crystalline violin | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
For those not aware, organic originally referred to any compound containing carbon.
So all diamonds are organic under that definition. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
/r/UpliftingNews | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Hardly. Also, Ticketmaster isn’t an industry. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
It fits her vibe. We just toured a prospective wedding venue and she was wearing a bright pink shirt that read "I am become death, destroyer of worlds," in the Barbie font. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
"Five long years, he wore this diamond up his ass. Then when he died of dysentery, he gave me the diamond. I hid this uncomfortable hunk of carbon up my ass for two years. Then, after seven years, I was sent home to my family. And now, little man, I give the diamond to you." | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Good no more blood diamonds. Now they can focus solely on conflict metals. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
|
r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
|
Craft diamonds | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
“Pardon my French, but Cameron is so tight that if you stuck a lump of coal up his ass, in two weeks you'd have a diamond.” | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Nice, hopefully the industry collapses | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Oh no, anyway. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Interesting! Classic reddit, the real knowledge is in the comments. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Israel's main export. Oh no. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
The diamond industry took advantage of pre-existing subjugation.
Our good friend palm oil was one of the major factors that contributed to the initial subjugation, at least when it came to large scale, direct rule. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Good. The entire diamond industry is a massive grift, artificially restricting supply to maintain a high price, for something whose use and value to consumers is dictated purely by marketing, not necessity.
If the diamond industry dies I'd be happy to see it go. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
i never really understood why they call them lab grown when they can be made in a warehouse with just carbon in a big ass press that is left to sit for a week or two. theres not any lab work besides buying raw carbon in the method i saw | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Gluten free | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Or finally get a phone screen that scratches back! | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
There are industrial processes that require incredibly pure, perfect diamonds and lab made diamonds are the way to go. Because we can control the properties to an even finer degree than before we now have different diamonds for different tasks. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Competing Brand: Organic Labor 🤨 | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
And another one 🎤 | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
I’m hoping for diamond windows to become cheaper, imagine a windshield that never so much as gets a single chip or crack in it. Or diamond screens for phones instead of glass, no more need for screen protectors. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Good. Fuck em. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
What's fauxpaux? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Blood diamonds. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Ai generated | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
You don’t think everyone was struggling to live 2000 years ago? 500 years ago? 200 years ago? In what sense are people not struggling to live today? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
We don't need to pay for our glittering jewels, trinkets and baubles in blood. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Yea, I was about to say, because lab diamonds have grown in popularity, the "natural" diamond sellers are now saying flaws are a *good* thing after railing against them for decades. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
The price of real diamonds is unaffected. The only prices being tanked are the prices of lab grown diamonds as it is constantly becoming cheaper to produce and more plentiful. It is easy to tell organic from synthetic due to the process they were formed with, much akin to fossilisation natural diamonds have evidence of millions of years of pressure. lab diamonds don’t.
The only people affected are the idiots that bought lab diamond wedding rings when they first came out to save 50% only now to be worth 5-10% of what they paid | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Feudal societies were constantly warring and kings/emperors/dynasties fell when somebody else who was more powerful violently overthrew them. Yes, there were periods of relative stability where the rulers were able to use those other methods you mention to maintain societal control, but they were still warlords during those periods, simply warlords who were strong enough that nobody was able to challenge them effectively and who thus did not have to war for awhile. As soon as they slipped up, or a strong challenger emerged, they were vulnerable. Thomas Hobbes, who was much closer to that kind of society than we are both temporally and experientially, basically said that kings' power derives from their ability to inflict violence more effectively than their rivals.
As for presidents, some people who hold that title might qualify, if they win power by e.g. executing a coup in a violent, unstable country. The ones who are beholden to constitutional limits and who are actually subject to elections and checks on their power from legislatures or judiciaries are not however. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
As it should be diamonds should no cost that much with how common they are | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Rubies can be grown easily with a furnace or even a microwave oven though.
Diamonds even industrial ones are just super tough to make and still cost 60%~ the price of a natural diamond. It's just not easy to compress a bit of ultra pure carbon 55,000x atmospheric pressure. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Diamond is the most common basic bitch gem of the universe. There's planets made of it out there. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
I bought a lab created diamond for my wife's wedding ring because you could get a higher graded diamond for a little bit less than the cost of a mined diamond. Why spend more because it came out of the ground? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Sounds far better than blood diamonds, ngl | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
“ ForeverWandered
A capitalist is someone who invests capital to produce tangible assets (explicitly NOT financial assets).”
No. You have the wrong definition of a capitalist. The capitalist is the owner of the means of production. What does that mean - that means that the capitalist is the person that does not need to use their labor for money. They use your labor.
In our society? That’s a lot of land and stock owners. The majority of stocks are owned by the capitalist class, not the workers in society. The Saudi “Royal” family fit the description.
“Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism?wprov=sfti1#
The capitalist being the private owner under capitalism. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
And even then, it has to be a *really good* jeweler who can tell the tiniest difference at a microscopic level (maybe not *microscopic*, but whatever the level is with their jeweler magnifying glass that they use). Because lab diamonds can actually have flaws built into them so they don't look "too perfect". So, merely having flaws doesn't even distinguish "natural" from lab. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
It's about time that price-gouging industry got a good slap in the face. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Diamonds are worthless | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Good, screw the Debeer's monopoly. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Don’t forget antibiotic free and unvaccinated. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-05-06 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.