Dear Mark...From Aaron
58 views
Skip to first unread message
PGage
Nov 1, 2019, 8:55:40 PM11/1/19
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
I assume most here have read Sorkin’s (devastating IMO, but then, again, I saw every episode of Studio 60) public letter in the NYT to Zuck. I post the link here for posterity, and highly recommend if you have not read. Best explanation I have seen of difference between free speech and responsible speech.
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Steve Timko
Nov 2, 2019, 1:27:54 AM11/2/19
to TV or Not TV
The last paragraph is scary.
“The law hasn’t been written yet — yet — that holds carriers of user-generated internet content responsible for the user-generated content they carry, just like movie studios, television networks and book, magazine and newspaper publishers. Ask Peter Thiel, who funded a series of lawsuits against Gawker, including an invasion of privacy suit that bankrupted the site and forced it to close down. (You should have Mr. Thiel’s number in your phone because he was an early investor in Facebook.)”
This will shut down discussions of stories on news sites. I’ve moderated discussion at two news sites in the last 12 years and the fact we were responsible or could be held liable for comments people post is the only reason these sites could exist. No news site – and I’m including the New York Times, CBS News and The Atlantic – have staff to research and vet comments to make sure matters asserted as fact are accurate.
Do you think Google would allow Google groups to continue if they could be held liable for the lies or home addresses of celebrities or whistleblowers that get posted?
One thing not being discussed in the whole Facebook ad thing is the dilemma Facebook faces. Advertising is profitable because the ads are do-it-yourself. No Facebook employee sees the ad until it is flagged. What Zuckerberg is fighting to keep is the lucrative ad revenue that gets generated with minimal review by humans.
“The law hasn’t been written yet — yet — that holds carriers of user-generated internet content responsible for the user-generated content they carry, just like movie studios, television networks and book, magazine and newspaper publishers. Ask Peter Thiel, who funded a series of lawsuits against Gawker, including an invasion of privacy suit that bankrupted the site and forced it to close down. (You should have Mr. Thiel’s number in your phone because he was an early investor in Facebook.)”
This will shut down discussions of stories on news sites. I’ve moderated discussion at two news sites in the last 12 years and the fact we were responsible or could be held liable for comments people post is the only reason these sites could exist. No news site – and I’m including the New York Times, CBS News and The Atlantic – have staff to research and vet comments to make sure matters asserted as fact are accurate.
Do you think Google would allow Google groups to continue if they could be held liable for the lies or home addresses of celebrities or whistleblowers that get posted?
One thing not being discussed in the whole Facebook ad thing is the dilemma Facebook faces. Advertising is profitable because the ads are do-it-yourself. No Facebook employee sees the ad until it is flagged. What Zuckerberg is fighting to keep is the lucrative ad revenue that gets generated with minimal review by humans.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2B9ZFSdM33ka0WjAjaE3wPYdifOxc3kvkOuexFby_uPkQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Kevin M.
Nov 2, 2019, 4:00:32 AM11/2/19
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:27 PM Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
The last paragraph is scary.
“The law hasn’t been written yet — yet — that holds carriers of user-generated internet content responsible for the user-generated content they carry, just like movie studios, television networks and book, magazine and newspaper publishers. Ask Peter Thiel, who funded a series of lawsuits against Gawker, including an invasion of privacy suit that bankrupted the site and forced it to close down. (You should have Mr. Thiel’s number in your phone because he was an early investor in Facebook.)”
This will shut down discussions of stories on news sites. I’ve moderated discussion at two news sites in the last 12 years and the fact we were responsible or could be held liable for comments people post is the only reason these sites could exist. No news site – and I’m including the New York Times, CBS News and The Atlantic – have staff to research and vet comments to make sure matters asserted as fact are accurate.
Do you think Google would allow Google groups to continue if they could be held liable for the lies or home addresses of celebrities or whistleblowers that get posted?
One thing not being discussed in the whole Facebook ad thing is the dilemma Facebook faces. Advertising is profitable because the ads are do-it-yourself. No Facebook employee sees the ad until it is flagged. What Zuckerberg is fighting to keep is the lucrative ad revenue that gets generated with minimal review by humans.
I think there is a line between content produced for online distribution vs public commentary. The media outlets you mentioned (the Times, CBS, et al) have different policies and guidelines for news content as opposed to op-eds. The only reason the line between the two has blurred is because of crappy decisions by both mainstream and new media that masks opinions as news. If we redraw the line, Sorkin’s paragraph isn’t scary. Facts have one set of rules, opinions have another.
--On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:55 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:I assume most here have read Sorkin’s (devastating IMO, but then, again, I saw every episode of Studio 60) public letter in the NYT to Zuck. I post the link here for posterity, and highly recommend if you have not read. Best explanation I have seen of difference between free speech and responsible speech.--Sent from Gmail Mobile--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2B9ZFSdM33ka0WjAjaE3wPYdifOxc3kvkOuexFby_uPkQ%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8ywB%2BbC%3DwxsvpcO%2BBTMC3sRJRxfkFDXcjhmr_5p_%2BZqXOw%40mail.gmail.com.
Kevin M. (RPCV)
Dave Sikula
Nov 2, 2019, 9:21:20 PM11/2/19
to TVorNotTV
Considering my feelings about Mr. Sorkin are roughly equivalent to Kevin's feelings about Alec Baldwin, I found this piece very easy to pass by. My interest in anything Sorkin has to say about anything (excepting maybe Gilbert and Sullivan) would need an electron microscope to detect.
--Dave Sikula
Steve Timko
Nov 3, 2019, 7:32:32 PM11/3/19
to TV or Not TV
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 1:00 AM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:27 PM Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:The last paragraph is scary.
“The law hasn’t been written yet — yet — that holds carriers of user-generated internet content responsible for the user-generated content they carry, just like movie studios, television networks and book, magazine and newspaper publishers. Ask Peter Thiel, who funded a series of lawsuits against Gawker, including an invasion of privacy suit that bankrupted the site and forced it to close down. (You should have Mr. Thiel’s number in your phone because he was an early investor in Facebook.)”
This will shut down discussions of stories on news sites. I’ve moderated discussion at two news sites in the last 12 years and the fact we were responsible or could be held liable for comments people post is the only reason these sites could exist. No news site – and I’m including the New York Times, CBS News and The Atlantic – have staff to research and vet comments to make sure matters asserted as fact are accurate.
Do you think Google would allow Google groups to continue if they could be held liable for the lies or home addresses of celebrities or whistleblowers that get posted?
One thing not being discussed in the whole Facebook ad thing is the dilemma Facebook faces. Advertising is profitable because the ads are do-it-yourself. No Facebook employee sees the ad until it is flagged. What Zuckerberg is fighting to keep is the lucrative ad revenue that gets generated with minimal review by humans.I think there is a line between content produced for online distribution vs public commentary. The media outlets you mentioned (the Times, CBS, et al) have different policies and guidelines for news content as opposed to op-eds. The only reason the line between the two has blurred is because of crappy decisions by both mainstream and new media that masks opinions as news. If we redraw the line, Sorkin’s paragraph isn’t scary. Facts have one set of rules, opinions have another.
No Kevin, you missed the point. I'm talking about readers comments like those listed below from a Washington Post article. The people who post there routinely state wrong facts, if they aren't outright lying. The Post doesn't have the staff to research and vet each comment. Every day there is a huge dose of misinformation in these kinds of posts. Sorkin is saying the Washington Post would be liable for them, since part of the reason they are allowed is to drive readers to the site and the Post can get a little bit more revenue from it.
I thought of another area that would go away: Amazon reviews. Do you think Jeff Bezos is going to risk lawsuits if reviewer wrongly states where a product is made or maximum amps at which it operates?
PGage
Nov 3, 2019, 7:50:19 PM11/3/19
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
It is a little ambiguous, but I don’t think Sorkin is talking about user comments on a web page. The issue has been FB accepting ads that are demonstrably untrue, not the conspiracy theories posted by my brother-in-law.
Sorkin writes:
“And right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son. Every square inch of that is a lie and it’s under your logo. That’s not defending free speech, Mark, that’s assaulting truth.”
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yy8Zh7DiNH2GJV5%3D%2BGB79cW0Cq2gH3p%2B2JNMHwiPwYZNw%40mail.gmail.com.
Steve Timko
Nov 3, 2019, 8:22:54 PM11/3/19
to TV or Not TV
The point of the public comments is revenue from more people visiting the site. The discussions help promote the site. It's not exactly the same but it can be mighty tough trying to differentiate.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYJ8qBWWoOZ70He%3DzuZ0p_AAvsm%2BNsgpKw9-f4kCC0UE0w%40mail.gmail.com.
PGage
Nov 3, 2019, 9:13:01 PM11/3/19
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Right. But the discussion has been about paid advertising. Twitter has recently decided not to take any more political ads, FB has refused to do this, and Zuck got owned by AOC about it during his testimony. I am I favor of the broadest possible freedom of speech, but not deceptive speech, that looks like news or science and instead is propaganda.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yxi0f9DZZKZYxjAJir9OjVHQGkKK1zOus1hJJ21QMFcbA%40mail.gmail.com.
Steve Timko
Nov 3, 2019, 10:51:57 PM11/3/19
to TV or Not TV
Unintended consequences.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKJYS84p66Rg5vDLOMpks66o_FWi0YJX-fGOEN%3D9WXS6A%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages