GPUs vanish as cryptocurrency prices soar again

Vrika

Ungood said:

I think simply removing the Section 230 protections from FB, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and the like, will fix the problems. How they have maintained that protection past their "Fact checkers" I have no idea, because Section 230, depends on them NOT controlling the content, so they should have lost all Section 230 protections they second they sought to control their content at all, it's rather obvious why they haven't, mainly because.. well.. this is a great place for this discussion.. because you know.. Money Talks.

I think they have maintained and will maintain Section 230 protection because of stuff like fact checkers. If they let themselves become too much a haven for conspiracy theories, false information, criminal activity, or similar then they would be regulated in the name of the common good. But as long as they keep things somewhat in check, they're left unregulated because it's an important avenue for (relatively) free speech.

Ungood

Quizzical said:

Ungood said:

I think simply removing the Section 230 protections from FB, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and the like, will fix the problems. How they have maintained that protection past their "Fact checkers" I have no idea, because Section 230, depends on them NOT controlling the content, so they should have lost all Section 230 protections they second they sought to control their content at all, it's rather obvious why they haven't, mainly because.. well.. this is a great place for this discussion.. because you know.. Money Talks.

Section 230 is a whole other can of worms, and commonly misunderstood.  Even the name is shorthand for section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  The point of the act was right there in the name.  The idea was that back in 1996, politicians had the idea that there was porn on the Internet and they needed to protect children from it.  From the state of things today, you can probably guess how successful they weren't in that quest.  Most of the Communications Decency Act was declared unconstitutional the next year.

Section 230 basically said that if people said something libelous, the site that merely hosted it wasn't responsible for it and couldn't be sued for libel.  The person who said it could still be sued for libel, but random, anonymous people aren't likely to have enough money to be worth suing.  Furthermore, it said that even if the site makes a good faith effort at filtering out objectionable content, by which they mostly meant pornographic, that wouldn't make the site liable for anything that they missed.

What Section 230 seems to have had in mind is services akin to AOL.  It certainly applies to ISPs.  But it surely wasn't intended to apply to modern social media sites that didn't even exist when it was written.

The problem is that there has to be some sort of libel protections or else forums like this one would be impossible.  One random user says something libelous and the site gets sued for more than the site is worth and shuts down.  Moderated forums and comment sections would mostly disappear from the Internet.  If forums and comment sections are treated like publishers, then at a bare minimum, they'd have to manually review and approve every single comment before it can be posted.  Hiring moderators to do that is expensive, and would lead to much more heavy-handed moderation from sites not wanting to touch anything remotely risky.

But even if there has to be some sort of libel protections to allow forums like this one to exist, an orphaned section of a law that was mostly ruled unconstitutional being customarily interpreted as protecting things that didn't exist when it was written is an awfully thin reed to hang those protections on.  What we really need is a new law with clearer rules that more directly apply to the sort of sites that exist today and can provide the libel protections via black letter law rather than customary interpretations that some future overly zealous prosecutor might decide to jettison.

Section 230 Protections hang on the idea that the Less you get involved as a host, the Safer You are.

And yes this was about AOL, and it fully links to FB as AOL was an early social platform not much different than Twitter and FB are today.

But, Section 230 was designed to protect them from liability, and still remain being able to host content without being slapped as publishers.

What this means for a site like this, the less they filter the safer they are, this is also why MMO's are not Liable for the asshattery that their players do. 

Hosts are only responsible to intervene when something is brought to their attention, Ergo, Harassment, and the like.

In fact this was settled in a landmark case involving Google and a Child Sex Trafficking site, the result was that Google was protected by Section 230, because they did not filter their content, that is what Section 230 is about.

In short this means all hosts should need to make a choice, They can either filter their content and thus they become liable as publishers, for everything that they host, or they can not filter their content and keep their Section 230, and simply moderate anything illegal that was brought to their attention by others, nothing more, and remain safe.

Right now, what you have happening, is these hosts, like FB and Twitter, are behaving like Publishers, where they Filter and Control the content of their platform, and yet still keep their Section 230, which is only supposed to protect them if they are NOT controlling their content.

So, the fact that FB can Filter and even Censor content, and Keep Section230 active, is a sign that there something very shady going...

Hey look.. it's a discussion about money.. and what goes better with money then bought off politicians! 

Quizzical

Arglebargle said:

The final success state for capitalism is monopoly.   To avoid that look, we have oligarchies that just view things the same way.  Hence GPU issues now, where there are only two viable choices.  

Section 230 allows internet companies to work, and getting rid of it would indeed cause tremendous disruption.  The equivalent of making old school papers responsible for the content of every letter to the editor. 

Consider the ramifications for a site like MMORPG.  

Intel is trying to make it three viable choices, and should launch some products this year.  I'm really hoping that they succeed, and not just because more competition is good for consumers.  Intel is also the most significant GPU vendor trying to make GPU compute APIs nice to use, and I really want to see their "OneAPI"/DPC++/SYCL catch on to the extent that AMD and Nvidia are basically forced to support it in order to be significant players in the GPU compute market.

Vrika

Mendel said:

Quizzical said:

Ungood said:

remsleep said:

Oh wait... its Sunday isn't it ... bye bye Parler, lol

I don't get this joke.. did I miss something?

Basically, Parler is like Twitter, except without moderation that heavily favors left-wing political views.  On Twitter, you can post blatant lies, rabid conspiracy theories, defend rioting, and so forth, so long as it's in favor of left-wing politics.  Try to do that in favor of right-wing politics and Twitter will crack down hard, at least if they notice.  Parler will allow both sides to say stupid stuff like that, not just the left, though they do draw the line at encouraging actual violence.

After Twitter aggressively censored political news that was probably true but would make Biden look bad in the runup to the election, a lot of people on the right were looking for an alternative, and many moved to Parler.  So while Parler will freely allow people on either the left or the right to say stupid stuff, most of the people who use it are politically on the right, because left-wingers prefer Twitter.

So naturally, that has led left-wing activists to try to get Parler banned, as if it's somehow fundamentally worse than Twitter.  They've convinced Google and Apple to kick Parler out of their app stores, and Amazon to stop hosting Parler's servers, which takes the site offline for a while until they can find alternate hosting.  The reasons that the big tech companies gave for the bans are reasonable enough in isolation, but if applied consistently, would certainly require banning Twitter, and probably all of the big social media sites.

Let's just hope the banning stops at the various social media outlets.  If major utilities, like power companies and/or ISPs get on this banning train, I don't know what would happen.  I expect it might be rather disgusting.

A bit ironic that Trump's administration did their best to repel net neutrality, and in essence give ISPs the power to get on this banning train if they wish.

Quizzical

Vrika said:

Ungood said:

I think simply removing the Section 230 protections from FB, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and the like, will fix the problems. How they have maintained that protection past their "Fact checkers" I have no idea, because Section 230, depends on them NOT controlling the content, so they should have lost all Section 230 protections they second they sought to control their content at all, it's rather obvious why they haven't, mainly because.. well.. this is a great place for this discussion.. because you know.. Money Talks.

I think they have maintained and will maintain Section 230 protection because of stuff like fact checkers. If they let themselves become too much a haven for conspiracy theories, false information, criminal activity, or similar then they would be regulated in the name of the common good. But as long as they keep things somewhat in check, they're left unregulated because it's an important avenue for (relatively) free speech.

You have that backwards.  The more aggressive they are about filtering content, the more liable they are for that content if it is libelous.  A newspaper is responsible for libel for every word they publish, since they're choosing what to publish.  Section 230 protects hosts only for content that they merely host and didn't choose what would be there.

Quizzical

Ungood said:

Section 230 Protections hang on the idea that the Less you get involved as a host, the Safer You are.

And yes this was about AOL, and it fully links to FB as AOL was an early social platform not much different than Twitter and FB are today.

But, Section 230 was designed to protect them from liability, and still remain being able to host content without being slapped as publishers.

What this means for a site like this, the less they filter the safer they are, this is also why MMO's are not Liable for the asshattery that their players do. 

Hosts are only responsible to intervene when something is brought to their attention, Ergo, Harassment, and the like.

In fact this was settled in a landmark case involving Google and a Child Sex Trafficking site, the result was that Google was protected by Section 230, because they did not filter their content, that is what Section 230 is about.

In short this means all hosts should need to make a choice, They can either filter their content and thus they become liable as publishers, for everything that they host, or they can not filter their content and keep their Section 230, and simply moderate anything illegal that was brought to their attention by others, nothing more, and remain safe.

Right now, what you have happening, is these hosts, like FB and Twitter, are behaving like Publishers, where they Filter and Control the content of their platform, and yet still keep their Section 230, which is only supposed to protect them if they are NOT controlling their content.

So, the fact that FB can Filter and even Censor content, and Keep Section230 active, is a sign that there something very shady going...

Hey look.. it's a discussion about money.. and what goes better with money then bought off politicians! 

Should sites only be able to moderate illegal content without being responsible for libel?  Shouldn't sites be allowed to have a "no politics or religion" rule that they enforce?  Shouldn't they be allowed to enforce rules to keep things at least somewhat relevant to the topic that the site is about?  Or to intervene when things degenerate into a flame war, even if nothing being said is illegal?

Ungood

Quizzical said:

Vrika said:

Ungood said:

I think simply removing the Section 230 protections from FB, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and the like, will fix the problems. How they have maintained that protection past their "Fact checkers" I have no idea, because Section 230, depends on them NOT controlling the content, so they should have lost all Section 230 protections they second they sought to control their content at all, it's rather obvious why they haven't, mainly because.. well.. this is a great place for this discussion.. because you know.. Money Talks.

I think they have maintained and will maintain Section 230 protection because of stuff like fact checkers. If they let themselves become too much a haven for conspiracy theories, false information, criminal activity, or similar then they would be regulated in the name of the common good. But as long as they keep things somewhat in check, they're left unregulated because it's an important avenue for (relatively) free speech.

You have that backwards.  The more aggressive they are about filtering content, the more liable they are for that content if it is libelous.  A newspaper is responsible for libel for every word they publish, since they're choosing what to publish.  Section 230 protects hosts only for content that they merely host and didn't choose what would be there.

Yah, Section 230, is only supposed to protect you if you are NOT involved in the publishing.

As mentioned above, about Porn, Section230 was not about keeping porn off the internet, it was about protecting tech companies, like search engines and hosts like AOL at the time, from getting their pants sued off if some kid saw porn on the internet.

If they regulate, they should lose their Section 230, and it's obvious at this point, given how much and easy they regulate, they should no longer have their Section 230

Vrika

Quizzical said:

Vrika said:

Ungood said:

I think simply removing the Section 230 protections from FB, Twitter, Google, Amazon, and the like, will fix the problems. How they have maintained that protection past their "Fact checkers" I have no idea, because Section 230, depends on them NOT controlling the content, so they should have lost all Section 230 protections they second they sought to control their content at all, it's rather obvious why they haven't, mainly because.. well.. this is a great place for this discussion.. because you know.. Money Talks.

I think they have maintained and will maintain Section 230 protection because of stuff like fact checkers. If they let themselves become too much a haven for conspiracy theories, false information, criminal activity, or similar then they would be regulated in the name of the common good. But as long as they keep things somewhat in check, they're left unregulated because it's an important avenue for (relatively) free speech.

You have that backwards.  The more aggressive they are about filtering content, the more liable they are for that content if it is libelous.  A newspaper is responsible for libel for every word they publish, since they're choosing what to publish.  Section 230 protects hosts only for content that they merely host and didn't choose what would be there.

In theory yes.

But in practise the government prefers it when they try to limit extremism and keep thing civil. The better they manage to moderate themselves, the less likely officials are going to want to change the current legal situation.

Ungood

Quizzical said:

Ungood said:

Section 230 Protections hang on the idea that the Less you get involved as a host, the Safer You are.

And yes this was about AOL, and it fully links to FB as AOL was an early social platform not much different than Twitter and FB are today.

But, Section 230 was designed to protect them from liability, and still remain being able to host content without being slapped as publishers.

What this means for a site like this, the less they filter the safer they are, this is also why MMO's are not Liable for the asshattery that their players do. 

Hosts are only responsible to intervene when something is brought to their attention, Ergo, Harassment, and the like.

In fact this was settled in a landmark case involving Google and a Child Sex Trafficking site, the result was that Google was protected by Section 230, because they did not filter their content, that is what Section 230 is about.

In short this means all hosts should need to make a choice, They can either filter their content and thus they become liable as publishers, for everything that they host, or they can not filter their content and keep their Section 230, and simply moderate anything illegal that was brought to their attention by others, nothing more, and remain safe.

Right now, what you have happening, is these hosts, like FB and Twitter, are behaving like Publishers, where they Filter and Control the content of their platform, and yet still keep their Section 230, which is only supposed to protect them if they are NOT controlling their content.

So, the fact that FB can Filter and even Censor content, and Keep Section230 active, is a sign that there something very shady going...

Hey look.. it's a discussion about money.. and what goes better with money then bought off politicians! 

Should sites only be able to moderate illegal content without being responsible for libel?  Shouldn't sites be allowed to have a "no politics or religion" rule that they enforce?  Shouldn't they be allowed to enforce rules to keep things at least somewhat relevant to the topic that the site is about?  Or to intervene when things degenerate into a flame war, even if nothing being said is illegal?

It needs to be done in Good Faith. 

In short if it feels like they are only targeting one group, like in your example, If they say "No religious Discussions" and then go about targeting say, Jewish discussions, but leave discussions about Buddhism up, that could be viewed as a violation of the Section 230 protocol.

Just like if FB targets Conservative Articles and not Liberal ones, that also could be viewed as a violation of Section 230, which is what they were brought before Congress about.

Quizzical

Ungood said:

Quizzical said:

Ungood said:

Section 230 Protections hang on the idea that the Less you get involved as a host, the Safer You are.

And yes this was about AOL, and it fully links to FB as AOL was an early social platform not much different than Twitter and FB are today.

But, Section 230 was designed to protect them from liability, and still remain being able to host content without being slapped as publishers.

What this means for a site like this, the less they filter the safer they are, this is also why MMO's are not Liable for the asshattery that their players do. 

Hosts are only responsible to intervene when something is brought to their attention, Ergo, Harassment, and the like.

In fact this was settled in a landmark case involving Google and a Child Sex Trafficking site, the result was that Google was protected by Section 230, because they did not filter their content, that is what Section 230 is about.

In short this means all hosts should need to make a choice, They can either filter their content and thus they become liable as publishers, for everything that they host, or they can not filter their content and keep their Section 230, and simply moderate anything illegal that was brought to their attention by others, nothing more, and remain safe.

Right now, what you have happening, is these hosts, like FB and Twitter, are behaving like Publishers, where they Filter and Control the content of their platform, and yet still keep their Section 230, which is only supposed to protect them if they are NOT controlling their content.

So, the fact that FB can Filter and even Censor content, and Keep Section230 active, is a sign that there something very shady going...

Hey look.. it's a discussion about money.. and what goes better with money then bought off politicians! 

Should sites only be able to moderate illegal content without being responsible for libel?  Shouldn't sites be allowed to have a "no politics or religion" rule that they enforce?  Shouldn't they be allowed to enforce rules to keep things at least somewhat relevant to the topic that the site is about?  Or to intervene when things degenerate into a flame war, even if nothing being said is illegal?

It needs to be done in Good Faith. 

In short if it feels like they are only targeting one group, like in your example, If they say "No religious Discussions" and then go about targeting say, Jewish discussions, but leave discussions about Buddhism up, that could be viewed as a violation of the Section 230 protocol.

Just like if FB targets Conservative Articles and not Liberal ones, that also could be viewed as a violation of Section 230, which is what they were brought before Congress about.

Moderation in good faith as decided by whom?  Do you really want the government to be able to arbitrarily say that this site has section 230 protections and that site doesn't because some bureaucrat said so?  That's like to result in all sites being forced to slant their moderation to agree with the preferences of whichever government agency is responsible for deciding whether moderation is done in good faith.

TwistedSister77

Can we agree getting Parlor and competitor apps off Apple and Google store is a blatant power grab by CEOs and Politicians by taking advantage of a few headline news stories... with zero evidence these apps did anything?

Iselin

TwistedSister77 said:

Can we agree getting Parlor and competitor apps off Apple and Google store is a blatant power grab by CEOs and Politicians by a few news stories... with zero evidence these apps did anything?

No.

Also how about keeping your 8chan conspiracy shit off a gaming site.

TwistedSister77

Iselin said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Can we agree getting Parlor and competitor apps off Apple and Google store is a blatant power grab by CEOs and Politicians by a few news stories... with zero evidence these apps did anything?

No.

Also how about keeping your 8chan conspiracy shit off a gaming site.

I don't know what 8chan is, pick up the main media news.  Apple and Google were banning Parlor and other apps.  

Now go be a good lemming and go back to playing farmville.

Iselin

TwistedSister77 said:

Iselin said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Can we agree getting Parlor and competitor apps off Apple and Google store is a blatant power grab by CEOs and Politicians by a few news stories... with zero evidence these apps did anything?

No.

Also how about keeping your 8chan conspiracy shit off a gaming site.

I don't know what 8chan is, 

Your cluelessness shocks me! (not)

Vrika

TwistedSister77 said:

Iselin said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Can we agree getting Parlor and competitor apps off Apple and Google store is a blatant power grab by CEOs and Politicians by a few news stories... with zero evidence these apps did anything?

No.

Also how about keeping your 8chan conspiracy shit off a gaming site.

I don't know what 8chan is, pick up the main media news.  Apple and Google were banning Parlor and other apps.  

Now go be a good lemming and go back to playing farmville.

I think the banned app was Parler, not Parlor.

TwistedSister77

Iselin said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Iselin said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Can we agree getting Parlor and competitor apps off Apple and Google store is a blatant power grab by CEOs and Politicians by a few news stories... with zero evidence these apps did anything?

No.

Also how about keeping your 8chan conspiracy shit off a gaming site.

I don't know what 8chan is, 

Your cluelessness shocks me! (not)

Yeah, just read briefly about it, an image board that is controversial for a lot of stuff including racist images... 

I stick news and other sites, if you like to go there... that's on you.

Iselin

TwistedSister77 said:

Iselin said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Iselin said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Can we agree getting Parlor and competitor apps off Apple and Google store is a blatant power grab by CEOs and Politicians by a few news stories... with zero evidence these apps did anything?

No.

Also how about keeping your 8chan conspiracy shit off a gaming site.

I don't know what 8chan is, 

Your cluelessness shocks me! (not)

Yeah, just read briefly about it, an image board that is controversial for a lot of stuff including racist images... 

I stick news and other sites, if you like to go there... that's on you.

Or another way of putting it, the mythical utopian happy place you and others seem to want where there is zero moderation and you can post whatever you want.

Go fill your boots. 

But like I said, this is a gaming site and this was a thread about cryptocurrency and GPUs before Quiz decided to derail his own thread and turn it political.

Astropuyo

TwistedSister77 said:

Iselin said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Can we agree getting Parlor and competitor apps off Apple and Google store is a blatant power grab by CEOs and Politicians by a few news stories... with zero evidence these apps did anything?

No.

Also how about keeping your 8chan conspiracy shit off a gaming site.

I don't know what 8chan is, pick up the main media news.  Apple and Google were banning Parlor and other apps.  

Now go be a good lemming and go back to playing farmville.

Probably because those services are being used to plan large coups and riots where you know.. people die in.

Like would you leave a active hot spot app on your list in this time? You would? You'd be stupid too.

for iphone users that sucks.

For android users they can still download the app.
Hell it's still in my library. I love parler. It's a great place to watch half country gas lit on.

If you are using parler for anything else I'd be surprised.  If you are actually posting to parler like it's some new freedom battle ground I got news for you.

You are content for jerks like me to laugh their asses off and then watch you get arrested assaulting a federal building.

Honestly the best content of the last decade has been there and it's been somethingawful

TwistedSister77

Iselin said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Iselin said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Iselin said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Can we agree getting Parlor and competitor apps off Apple and Google store is a blatant power grab by CEOs and Politicians by a few news stories... with zero evidence these apps did anything?

No.

Also how about keeping your 8chan conspiracy shit off a gaming site.

I don't know what 8chan is, 

Your cluelessness shocks me! (not)

Yeah, just read briefly about it, an image board that is controversial for a lot of stuff including racist images... 

I stick news and other sites, if you like to go there... that's on you.

Or another way of putting it, the mythical utopian happy place you and others seem to want where there is zero moderation and you can post whatever you want.

Go fill your boots. 

But like I said, this is a gaming site and this was a thread about cryptocurrency and GPUs before Quiz decided to derail his own thread and turn it political.

Those apps/sites have moderation...  again go read their Terms.  

I get the frustration with a hijack, but just call it that... 

Iselin

TwistedSister77 said:

Those apps/sites have moderation...  again go read their Terms.  

So one Wikipedia article later you're already an 8chan expert? LMAO

Ungood

Iselin said:

But like I said, this is a gaming site and this was a thread about cryptocurrency and GPUs before Quiz decided to derail his own thread and turn it political.

Actually it was Rem who made the first Political Comment.

Iselin

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

But like I said, this is a gaming site and this was a thread about cryptocurrency and GPUs before Quiz decided to derail his own thread and turn it political.

Actually it was Rem who made the first Political Comment.

No, it was Cleffy if you want to get technical.

Ungood

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

But like I said, this is a gaming site and this was a thread about cryptocurrency and GPUs before Quiz decided to derail his own thread and turn it political.

Actually it was Rem who made the first Political Comment.

No, it was Cleffy if you want to get technical.

Yah, yer right. Missed that.

Ungood

remsleep said:

TwistedSister77 said:

Can we agree getting Parlor and competitor apps off Apple and Google store is a blatant power grab by CEOs and Politicians by taking advantage of a few headline news stories... with zero evidence these apps did anything?

After the events that happened in DC there is no way parler would remain untouched

Oh spare us any morality here, nothing happened to FaceBook when it was used to coordinate the George Floyd (and other) riots, as well as people uploading videos of themselves engaging in said riots.

Ungood

But Cliffy did have a point. Not sure about other countries, but America gets almost all it's tech from China, with near to nothing made domestically. So the Admiration and their relation to China does have some impact on the cost of our tech imports and the like.

So, at least for Americans, Politics can play a role in our hobby in the form of affecting the cost of the goods we seek to buy.

I mean keep in mind, even minor taxes at port can have a ripple effect that inflates the overall price of things by not an insignificant amount.

I mean, keep in mind some of the Big MMO's on the market today are in fact backed by Chinese corporations, Case in Point, FFXIV, GW2, BDO, all being top MMO's all use Won for Earnings, in fact a lot of MMO's use the Won in their earning reports.

So obviously, America's relation with China does both directly and indirectly affect our Hobby.

Not that we need to get all political about it, but it's there none the less.