I have offered for years that one of the sure-fire markers of the arriving Second Great Depression will be the increasing regulation of the Internet.
When it comes, and I spelled out the case for it in one of my books (Broken Web) that it will have to, one of the first area’s I’d like to see cleaned up in political email.
Near as I could figure, between the crooks raising money to “fight Trump” and promising to see him removed from office (the job of Congress) and the solicitations asking me to spend to “save the climate” and blaming climate change for hurricanes…well, enough is enough.
(Continues below)
A few facts about the internet which should be apparent.
- Lawyers are asleep at the switch. We could clean up the internet tomorrow and all you need to do it is a couple of heads-up law firm willing to go for the throat of irresponsible social media.
Let me explain (which I will, like it, or not): When someone writes about me on Facebook and (let’s suppose in an unflattering way) and in a manner that has nothing to do with the “public” George, are not they (Facebook) guilty of holding me up to public defamation?
Ditto, when a non-public figure is held up to ridicule on Twitter, Pinterest, or elsewhere.
The Social(ists) will argue that they can’t be responsible for the behavior of their customers. So let’s distill this thought down to its basics:
If I own a billboard and someone pays me to put something slanderous and defamatory about YOU on it, should I – the billboard owner – be responsible to take down the offending sign? Of course. But when I willingly let the sign stay up, doesn’t that make me complicit?
You see, the socials are already doing exactly this: they put up content – anyone’s offensive, dumb-ass content, because it makes them money.
I think a heads-up law firm would be able to prove that the “billboard owners” have an agenda that involves manipulating the public opinion and they seem to allow left wing fascists (whatever those might be, but say you have an antifa or a southern poverty bent and follow me here) a free pass while punishing those with a different view.
Seems just plain stupid to me that class actions haven’t shut down social media yet, but that would be nice.
Like a library card or a phone book, I don’t mind internet licensure when it comes because a ‘licensed content provider” should ONLY have a license is they are actually in the business of CREATING content.
The internet has become like the crowded theater, though. The Colbert deal the other day (“Trump didn’t meet with hurricane victims” I think it was) is an example. A certain core audience of social media let’s BS like this come charging in one ear and retold on the other ear’s next phone call, after being tweetered and reposted to all their friends.
Every wonder how America got stupid?
2. I think the Internet would also be well served by the cops and LEO’s getting much more involved. Even local cities should have at least one cop devoted to internet crime. There is probably enough stolen merchandise on eBay to choke a pawn shop. Not to mention sale of things like night vision gear that honest people don’t realize can be eBay’ed to any country that doesn’t like us.
Did I mention the fraud that goes on over social media? Oh, fine, that too.
3. I would have expected the medical profession to have announced a finding like they did with cell phones a few years back, too.
You remember the one: Cell phones will cook your skin over time? It’s all there is radiation exposure tables, but who believes it.
Just like video gaming is known to have consequences, too much social time is a scam that’s bad for you, too.
Well, I could go on and on. But the emails from people willing to charge me to change climate, Trump, and sell me a back brace and a reverse mortgage…it’s all too much.
Bring on the lawyers. They might not get much straight, but they will muck things up and at $300 per hour, a law school education with a bent toward going after the deep pockets is sure to be one of those few jobs robotics won’t take.
Until the robo-judges come along.
Till then? Social(ist) media is generating headlines like this one: “Twitter Bans Activist Mommy for Tweeting Her Dislike of Teen Vogue’s Anal Sex Guide.”
Maybe this is social’s way of pretending not to be a PITA?
Which, if you read Peoplenomics, is yet-another perfect fit with our most recent Operation 30 update on how the Elites are working the depop game..
Thank you!
Got plenty of book proofing offers. Now I just have to finish the damn thing.
Ran into a new angle just yesterday which surprised the hell out of me. Speaking of which, I hope Bruce Gernon and Rob MacGregor (The Fog: A Never Before Published Theory of the Bermuda Triangle Phenomenon ) are OK – they’re in Florida.
My book is now 172 footnotes and 163 pages…
OK, off to check markets and storm tracks…ya’ll come back money and for people in Houston and Florida, our prayers are with you.
Write when you get rich (or dry out)
George@ure.net
In this year’s continuing education, I listened to several lectures about regulating speech on the internet. I forget the name of the law, but there is a federal law exempting website operators from most defamation and fraud claims. For $300 an hour I’ll give anybody a more detailed explanation. ?
I are no lawyer, but from here: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act
“Not surprisingly, the first websites to be sued for defamation based on the statements of others argued that they were merely distributors, and not publishers, of the content on their sites. One of the first such cases was Cubby v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). CompuServe provided subscribers with access to over 150 specialty electronic “forums” that were run by third parties. When CompuServe was sued over allegedly defamatory statements that appeared in the “Rumorville” forum, it argued that it should be treated like a distributor because it did not review the contents of the bulletin board before it appeared on CompuServe’s site. The court agreed and dismissed the case against CompuServe.
Four years later, a New York state court came to the opposite conclusion when faced with a website that held itself out as a “family friendly” computer network. In Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, 23 Media L. Rep. 1794 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995), the court held that because Prodigy was exercising editorial control over the messages that appeared on its bulletin boards through its content guidelines and software screening program, Prodigy was more like a “publisher” than a “distributor” and therefore fully liable for all of the content on its site. ”
Which means, as I read it, the more intrusive the agenda of FB, tweeter et al becomes, they actually make it easier to sue for defamation because they are NOT innocent republishers when this kind of stuff comes up, but are de facto publishers themselves by controlling content…
Phew.. and me being as opinionated as I am always spouting off.. I should calm down take a Valium so I don’t say the wrong thing..what ever my opinion is won’t change what happens anyway..
OH OH… didn’t I say it..I thought this was the new plague.. I know it isn’t in todays discussion.. but important none the less and another good reason to have everyone having the ability to get medical treatment when they are sick.. forget the money mongers only looking at getting a buck….
the forefather to this one.. started with one person a few years ago.. today it is in all states and after visiting with the guy that originally discovered the issue and finding out how they handled it.. it is a very scary issue that the USA takes lightly compared to other countries. where I originally questioned it was when i seen that it was classified a level 3 but was on top of all the level 4 on all the lists.. the procedures for both are completely different.. I actually discussed this years ago with GU2 his answer was.. you don’t have a clue what you are dealing with with this one.. stay away.. wise words just like his dad..
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2817%2930489-9/fulltext
As another example, while there are laws against making threats & being harassing over the telephone system, the phone companies themselves are untouchable because they themselves do not normally monitor, nor “police”, the contents of telephone calls.