Tag Archives: Section 230

Can You tell?

That is the setting that I am faced with, a setting where we get the news and whether it is a story or a setting of wishful thinking (some might say fairy tale), when we cannot tell, is it on us, the lacking credibility of the news or something else? I have been to some degree Apple minded for over 20 years, I had hits, I had misses, and I was confronted with blunders (by Apple), yet overall, the Apple feeling is good, steering towards decent. That is set in a few stations, first is the iPod, when it came out I got the 20Gb and it was heaven, at some point I had to upgrade and I got the 80Gb classic, I still have it today, it never stopped working for close to 13 years, that is the setting I crave. I also had other Apple stuff, first the question mark, I had to get an Apple (partially for work and on the edge of Powermac, I ended up with the Performa 630, part of me was unhappy that Powermac was not compatible, yet the Performa did its work and it did it well. I learned a lot in those days. That was until the new updates were no longer helping me, but I could still use it to surf the web and a few other things, I was not unhappy. The next one in my route was a clear miss, the G4 MacBook, I was happy as anything the moment I had it and it did it work and got me through my Unix classes, but after 15 months the display had one line, then 5 then 30 lines and I had no Apple care, the laptop ($5,200) had cleaned me out and when the bad setting hit it was too late for me, I think I still have it somewhere in the box, it was a sad day for me. It was after I got the G5 Mac Pro which was an absolute delight, it still works (I think), it was one of the first 68020 and it never let me down, it could edit photos (25MP ones) in a heartbeat. So here I am now, listening to Jean Michel Jarre on my iPod, whilst typing on my MacBook, which is outdoing most of the expectations I have on it. I actually got some naughty 4K footage and the display was unbelievable, I don’t really have it for that, but I wanted to see if it could hold its own and it does. So here I am looking at Reuters giving us ‘Apple’s late iPhone launch temporarily wiped $100 billion off its stock value’ (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-results/apples-late-iphone-launch-temporarily-wiped-100-billion-off-its-stock-value-idUSKBN27E3FP), so is it wishful thinking? Let look at the quote “Since 2013, Apple has delivered new iPhones each September like clockwork. But pandemic-induced delays pushed the announcement back a month, with some devices still yet to ship. Even as booming sales of Macs and AirPods boosted overall revenue and profit above what analysts had expected, iPhone sales dropped 20.7% to $26.4 billion”, in this where am I? Well it started with the entire Coronavirus part and the fact that we were allowed to get some of our retirement funds early, I got the first one, but not the second one. It paid for a truckload of bills and there was enough left to get the iPad. You see, when I went to get my two graduate and master degrees, I treated myself to the iPad, the very first one and it has been working 24:7 since I got it in 2010. I got the 64GB version with cellular and I was happy, in classes as I watched everyone run to a powerpoint, my iPad got me my notes and I was happy. Even as most options will not work because support stopped for it long ago, some basic usage was working and earlier this year when I started to wind down more and more, I was sad, so with the cash, I went for an iPad Air in may 2020, my iPad would have worked 10 years a achievement well worth it. And that is where I am now, still waiting for my iPad Air, I had to resubmit the order, but the basic setting is that Apple cannot deliver, now the latest (partially unconfirmed) is that I will receive my iPad this coming month, after 6 months waiting (and not just me, others have this issue too). So as you might figure, the headline Reuter gives a warped setting. Is it true? The setting might be worse, in July I got a hold of information that the delay was ONLY the iPads with cellular, I have no decent sources to confirms that, but that would indicate a chip shortage, if that is so the iPhone has additional issues, as does any Apple mobile device with cellular. So when we see “But the flagship iPhone 12’s announcement was delayed until Oct. 13, several weeks later than usual, meaning no opening-weekend iPhone sales are included in the fourth-quarter results” and when we realise that some devices that were supposed to come out in the beginning of October are still not here and optionally not until the 15th of November, the damage is larger and worse. If there is a chip shortage (still unconfirmed), we are looking at a 4th quarter where it sucks to be an Apple (not that oranges have a better chance). Yet in all the hundreds of advertisements on the new iPad Air, who has seen any kind of article anywhere that these iPad Air are still delayed? When we seek it in Google, ‘iPad Air’ gives us 31,000,000 hits and the first few hundred links give nothing on delays, so why is that? And when we get to “Apple said revenue from its accessories segment was up 20.8% to $7.9 billion, compared with analyst estimates of a 13.5% rise to $7.4 billion, according to Refinitiv data. Mac and iPad sales rose to $9.0 billion and $6.8 billion, compared with estimates of $7.92 billion and $6.12 billion, according to Refinitiv data”, the question shapes. I paid for my device, I just haven’t received mine yet, so where are they? As far as I was able to tell, here in NSW there were 85 outstanding orders, so how many are missing and if they are all the cellular versions, what chip shortage is Apple facing and when we learn that part, how come Reuters did not have the goods (or pretty much any other newspaper). In this, I wonder what else we get to learn before the year ends and if that delay is the cellular chipset, where will we be when the year ends. Fortunately, my mobile is Android driven and for now I am in a good place for most matters technology based. And my mind goes on racing, even though it is more for the movies than real life (as one might hope), I just had an idea where the Fitbit could be part of a detonator, but then so could a Wear OS device, I merely need to test if I can silently ping the device, oh the inhumanity of it all. I got the idea as I was considering another chapter in my Rama story and when “This type of sub-dermal implant usually contains a unique ID number that can be linked to information contained in an external database, such as personal identification, law enforcement, medical history, medications, allergies, and contact information”, it is not merely that, the Fitbit has a similar path and when it is close enough, boom (big badaboom). Although the setting has been seen in the movie Wedlock, the implementation does not need to be that visible, you just need to person to pass the box and the result is gained (might be that Ubisoft Watchdogs Legion) got my devious side up and running, yet the station is there. And how does this affect Apple? It got to me whilst I was remembering the Guardian who gave us in 2018 ‘Fitness tracking app Strava gives away location of secret US army bases’, yet it does not need to be that simple, simpler settings are enough. Someone gives us “Find My Fitbit finder app for iOS and Android helps you find your lost Fitbit in minutes not days”, yet the setting of minutes lies with the provider, one app adjustment and we see seconds instead of minutes, now the only thing we need is the proper app. 

I am willing to bet that the CIA (and its counterpart on 2 Bolshaya Lubyanka Street) already have a version, and that is if we think simple, 5G allows a setting that is worse, it is targeted fund relief, lets face it kids love the big badaboom, the rest prefers the ka-ching sound, and why does it matter? You see when you help out a person like Jeff Bezos with the weight of 154,667,332 dollars in his wallet (one of his Credit-Cards), people will find you, unless you were never there, as a silent drone can be placed on that path to release a specific person of a number represented by 28 bits, we see that the Leo’s are at a loss, it is not their forte, yet the technology is already here. The thought of that made me create my dumb-smart device, but this stage is a lot larger than I gave it credit for, and as governments are bitching on what big-tech can do whilst they have larger issues than Section 230, it is time for them to smell the instant Waco, it is almost like coffee, but set to gunpowder tea (yes that really exists). 

So as we see the Apple setting, it is more than a see chip shortage, the question becomes, who has them and how can they possibly be used. All whilst you are thinking you have a cool foldable phone, I see it for what it is, it is a personal data server and I found three additional uses you were never aware of. So, how cool is that?

So when you run and you hear a large boom, it is not some explosive, it is the other shoe dropping.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Military, Science

Is it me? Perhaps it is!

Yup, we need to look into matters and I am willing to concede that I am the stupid one, yet the BBC is setting a stage that is not set to the proper players and it shows (well, to me it does), so as I look at ‘Facebook, Twitter and Google face questions from US senators’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54721023), we see ““[It] allows digital businesses to let users post things but then not be responsible for the consequences, even when they’re amplifying or dampening that speech,” Prof Fiona Scott Morton, of Yale University, told the BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “That’s very much a publishing kind of function – and newspapers have very different responsibilities. “So we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society.”” You see, the stage is larger, even as we see a reference towards section 230 with the added quote “some industry watchers agree the legislation needs to be revisited”, so can we have these names? 

Section 230
Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content.
Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party users: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

Yet the stage is a lot larger, most common law nations (civil law nations too) have similar protections in place, and ever as we see the repose by Professor Fiona Scott Morton giving us “we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society”, most parties refuse to hold the posters of the online information accountable. It is too hard, there are too many issues, but in the end, I call it a load of bollocks, the avoidance of accountability has been on my mind for close to a decade, the lawmakers have done nothing (or close to it). These lawmakers do not comprehend, the politicians are mostly clueless and the technologists cannot abide to the lack of insight that the other two are showing they lack.

So as we see “both sides agree they want to see the social networks held accountable”, yet neither is willing to hold the poster of the transgressor accountable and that is the larger issue. So even as we see the so called political ploys and no matter what the reason is, when we see “Both President Trump and his election rival Joe Biden have called for the removal of Section 230, though for different reasons”, yet both ignore the obvious, the posters want a medium and outside of the US they have all the options to continue. Basically the only thing that the US will accomplish is isolation, all whilst the dreaded posts from those who seek to harm society will never be stopped, they merely change location, and now that the US is ranking 8th on the 5G speed lit at a mere 13.29% of the speed of number one, things will go from bad to worse, limiting big tech is the larger error in their thinking pattern. 

Any form of censorship strangles freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Holding the speakers accountable is not censorship, it merely sets the frame that these social media speakers will be held to account, optional in a court for WHAT they say. It was never that complex, so why push the side that resolves nothing? So whilst we see all these media articles on AI and how AI is NOW the solution that one can purchase, the factual reality is “experts have predicted the development of artificial intelligence to be achieved as early as by 2030. A survey of AI experts recently predicted the expected emergence of AGI or the singularity by the year 2060”, a stage we seemingly forget whenever some short sighted politician makes a twist towards AI and the solution in social media, the reality is that there is no AI, not yet. Forbes (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/10/how-far-are-we-from-achieving-artificial-general-intelligence/#389ade286dc4) introduces us to “Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) can be defined as the ability of a machine to perform any task that a human can”, you see, commerce couldn’t wait for AI to come, so they pushed it into AGI, and the AI they all advertise is merely a sprinkle of AI, scripted solutions to singular tasks and even that part is debatable, because the application of AI needs more, I wrote bout it almost two months ago. I wrote “until true AI and true Quantum computing are a fact, the shallow circuits cannot cut through the mess”, I did this in ‘About lights and tunnels’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/09/08/about-lights-and-tunnels/), you see, IBM IS THE ONLY PLAYER that is close to getting the true Quantum computing up and running, Shallow circuits are still evolving and that matters, because they only launched their first quantum computing solution a year ago. When they complete that part we see the first stage when a true AI can become a reality, only then is there an actual solution available to seek out the perpetrators. So as we look at all the elements involved, we can see to a clear degree that 

  1. There is no real solution to the problem (at present).
  2. Section 230 is doing what it was doing, even as there are issues (no one denies that).
  3. As such we need to hold the posters accountable for what they post.

As I see it these three parts are only the top layer, and in no way is adapting or editing section 230 the solution, it might if all nations adopt it, but what is the chance of that? The only thing that the US and its senators achieve is scaring business somewhere else, when that happens the US and its data gathering stage will take a spiralling downward turn, one their economy is certainly seen as a near death experience. I think that these senators need to stop selling shit as peanut butter. To realise that part we merely need to turn the clock back to April 2018 and consider Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg how he is able to sustain a business model in which users do not pay. The answer was simple “Senator, we run ads” (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H8wx1aBiQ). A stage where someone was allegedly this unaware of the stage of digital media, when they rely on questions that are a basic 101 of digital media, how can we take the efforts, or the presented efforts of both the democratic and republican houses serious? 

It is a stage where you will need to take a deeper look at what you see, it is not easy and I am not asking you to believe me, I for one might be the one who sees it wrong, I believe that my view is the correct one, but when all these high titled and educated people give sides, I am willing to go own faith that I need to take another look at what I believe to be correct. And wth that, I get to my very first article. The article ‘The accountability act – 2015’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2012/06/19/the-accountability-act-2015/) was me seeing the change in 2012, seeing the need for an accountability act, an essential need in 2015, it never came to be and people more intelligent than me thought it not essential. So whilst I wrote (in 2012) “I believe it is time for things to truly change. I believe that the greed of some is utterly destroying the future of all others. Who would have thought in my days of primary school, that an individual would be able to have the amount of power to bleed entire cities into poverty? It was never in my thought, but then, GREED was always a weird thing. It is the one utter counterproductive sin. You see, greed does not drive forward. Competitiveness does. Innovation does. Greed does not. Greed is the foundation of slavery and submission. It drives one person to get everything at the expense of (all) others”, as such, I saw a setting that we see now more and more clearly, I was ahead of my time (well, my ego definitely is). 

We need a different setting and we can blame the big tech companies, but is that the factual setting? When we use the quote from the AFP giving us “Capitol Hill clashed with Silicon Valley Wednesday over legal protections and censorship on social media during a fiery hearing a week before Election Day in which Twitter’s Jack Dorsey acknowledged that platforms need to do more to “earn trust.””, yet the big tech companies do not write laws do they? Yes they all need to earn trust, but trust is also lost through the newspapers using digital media to set the stage of ‘click bitches’ reacting to THEIR stories, as such, how guilty is big tech? So when we are confronted with the ludicrous headline “Kim Kardashian is accused of having SIX TOES in snaps from THAT controversial birthday getaway: ‘Why is this not trending’”, something that comes up apparently every now and then, yet this is a NEWSPAPER, as such as they also use digital media to push forward their economic needs, the stage of section 230 is a little larger, and the fact that what I personally would see as fake news, we see fake news coming from news agencies, so when we consider that some talk about “earn trust”, I think that we demand this from newspapers and see how long they accept that stage before greed takes over, or should I say the needs for clicks on digital media? A stage we saw in the Leveson Inquiry and as greed took over, I wonder whether these senators have any clue on the stage that is before them and the size of that stage. A stage that has additional sides and I am willing to wager that they haven’t got a clue how many sides they are unaware off. The US (and some others) need big tech to be as it is, if I can innovate 5G beyond their scope, that matter will merely increase when they break up, making the US more and more of a target against innovators they have no defence against, because the innovators are no longer in the US, and those they thought they had are moving away to greener pastures.
It might not hurt the big tech companies with offices outside of the US, but I reckon those senators thought of that, didn’t they?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media

You’re useless and you know it

Yup, quite the opening headline and  would like to tell the reader the it is about him or her, but no such luck, the headline (as is) can only be given to the most useless of useless, the US Senate. Yup, as some voices stated in the past, the US has fruits (US Congress) and nuts (US Senate) and there we sit in the middle of the tutti frutti of the dance floor, one might almost invite Madonna to come over and add a little spice to the mixture.

Yet Reuters who gives us (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-senate-tech/senate-panel-approves-sending-subpoenas-to-ceos-of-twitter-facebook-google-idUSKBN26M6FA) the headline ‘Senate panel approves sending subpoenas to CEOs of Twitter, Facebook, Google’, with the quote “The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday unanimously voted to approve a plan to subpoena chief executives of Twitter, Alphabet’s Google and Facebook for a hearing likely to be held before the election on a prized legal immunity enjoyed by internet companies”, We can go in every direction possible, but lets start with “passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content”, In this we see two elements, the first being that in 1996 there was no Google, no Twitter and no Facebook, in the second on larger beneficiary was the online presence of FoxNews, Yahoo and lets face it as I personally see it, Microsoft who started part of the mess we have now. 

To invoke what I did (the useless part), it is important to see “After passage of the Telecommunications Act, the CDA was challenged in courts and ruled by the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) to be partially unconstitutional, leaving the Section 230 provisions in place. Since then, several legal challenges have validated the constitutionality of Section 230”, in this Justice John Paul Stevens (Supreme Court) wrote in June 1997: “We are persuaded that the CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve. … It is true that we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials. But that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults. As we have explained, the Government may not “reduc[e] the adult population … to … only what is fit for children.””, as such how stupid does a US Senator tend to be? It passed the Supreme court, it passed a few stations over the term of 20 years and optional alleged beneficiaries (Google, Facebook, Twitter) are called into a Senate hearing? Some sources even state ‘Letting Platforms Decide What Content To Facilitate Is What Makes Section 230 Work’, the latter one is up for debate, but the setting of section 230 is not, it is a legal thing, so why would someone set the stage for a hearing the is basically pointless set the stage? To get a few free dinners and perhaps tax deductibility? I do not know, I merely ask.

The setting of a stage 40 days before election, is the current view and when we see “top Democrat Maria Cantwell, who opposed the move last week, saying she was against using “the committee’s serious subpoena power for a partisan effort 40 days before an election,” changed her mind and voted to approve the move” I wonder what this really is, because as I see it, it has nothing to do with big tech, and optionally section 230 is also not in play, but what is? There is the optional quote given “Republican President Donald Trump has made holding tech companies accountable for allegedly stifling conservative voices a theme of his administration. As a result, calls for a reform of Section 230 have been intensifying ahead of the elections, but there is little chance of approval by Congress this year”, yet optional settings of “stifling conservative voice” would not change that, this is about intentional hurting facilitation, changing the premise of free expression, the moment big tech is held responsible, no opinion is heard and the anti-Trump (those who highlight stupidity) is seen nearly everywhere, as such, President Trump needs every amount he can get. I do not think that this is the right path and more important changing law on this scale to bake (not make) awareness of something set almost in stone for 20 years does not help. 

In this I want to extend my friendliness to give a shout to the largest part of the problem, mainly Republican Senator Roger Wicker, even s he gives us “After extending an invite to these executives, I regret that they have again declined to participate and answer questions about issues that are so visible and urgent to the American people”, I merely wonder if he has any clue who the American people are. This train of thought is seen as Politico gives us “under the newly unveiled Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, the legal shield would protect the companies only when they take down specific types of content, including material “promoting terrorism” or which promotes “self-harm” or is otherwise illegal”, as such, when was there an upside when we consider ‘specific types on content’, as I see it it the setting towards a biased filter of what constitutes free speech and freedom of expression. As such the simple question becomes: ‘Who has seen S.4534 – Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act? Deputy Counsel Elizabeth Banker did and gives us “Section 230’s otherwise objectionable clause underpins crucial content moderation efforts that make their platforms safer for everyone. Eliminating that clause will make it harder, not easier, for online services to remove content like misinformation, platform manipulation, or bullying that’s neither illegal nor in the bill’s new description of allowable moderation. This bill would also hamper platforms from adapting to future moderation challenges.“We also have serious First Amendment concerns with this bill. This bill would limit the ability of private online platforms and services, including small forums for schools, churches, and local sports leagues, to set and enforce rules for their communities.””, a direct powerful view given on September 8th (at https://internetassociation.org/news/statement-in-response-to-the-introduction-of-the-online-freedom-and-viewpoint-diversity-act/), as such we takeaway “Eliminating that clause will make it harder, not easier, for online services to remove content like misinformation, platform manipulation, or bullying” does this constitute the idea that the speculated biggest bully in America wants a free pass? And there are also “serious First Amendment concerns” which cannot be ignored. 

When we see this level of issues from the very beginning, how stupid is any senator participating in this, and when we demand under freedom of information their names and tell people that this lit constitutes a list of people attacking free speech, how happy will they be? There is of course the issue of the elected Democrat from the state of Washington Maria Cantwell, I wonder what she has to say for herself, especially it he hearing happens before the elections, I reckon that President Elect Biden will not have too much need for her, but that is merely my speculation.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics