Shameless smugpost about the tech companies.

I wrote how Google and other tech companies are abusing their status as tech companies to behave as media companies without the legal risks and costs. In short: if a newspaper posts libel or they post copyrighted materials, they can be sued. If Google posts the same thing, it cannot, because Google claims that it was a “user” who posted it, nevermind that they pay this “user”, have huge moderator team to remove “users” who post things they didn’t like and use their own search algorithm to promote this “user”.

We are not there yet, but closing the US congress passed the anti sex-trafficking bill with landslide votes. I’m pretty smug now.

The legislation would allow state attorneys general and victims to sue websites that “knowingly” facilitate sex trafficking. It’s targeted at sites like, the subject of a long-running Senate investigation, which was accused of hosting ads that promoted the trafficking of minors.

But parts of the internet industry believe the measure creates a dangerous precedent that could open up internet companies like Google and Twitter to a litany of lawsuits and potential criminal liability for content posted on their platforms.

This is definitely a good first step to defeat these abominations that kill other platforms with their “profit is mine, liability is on” trick and then use their monopoly as platform to dictate what kind of speech is allowed. I wrote back then in a comment what should – and I believe will – replace the current regulations:

– A content creator (like myself) is responsible for the content and all of it. If you don’t like my content, you are free to not consume my content. If you wish to be heard, you are free to start your own blog, full of your thoughts and people are free to choose to read it. I moderate (censor) comments on my blog at my pleasure, you are free to go elsewhere if you don’t like it. In turn I should be responsible for comments too.

– A carrier is not responsible for content whatsoever and forbidden from any kind of censorship (except court takedown orders). They are responsible for the identification of content creators. So if xXxArthasDK69xXx uploads uploads TheAvengers-CamRip.mp4 or “guys wanted to kill Hillary”, the carrier should be able to give out the identity of xXxArthasDK69xXx to the court order the same way that a phone company is able. So creating an account would include going to their customer support office, show ID, sign contract. This way the copyright owners can sue – not xXxArthasDK69xXx – but Jonas D. Smith, Nowhere street 5, Austin, TX for TheAvengers-CamRip.mp4 and even if they can’t get enough compensation because he is unemployed, they can get a court order to stop and next time lock him up for contempt of court.


PS: do you remember the game dev who refused to censor his game according to crazy-liberal demands and all the gaming media united to destroy his game? I’m talking about this guy:

Author: Gevlon

My blog:

11 thoughts on “Shameless smugpost about the tech companies.”

  1. IMO the only discussion to be really had on this topic is whether it is okay to give the government this mich power. From my POV, better government (which i have at least a measure of control over through public institutions) than tech monopolies (that answer to a select and hidden few). However, i gotta admit i’m still less than comfortable with the notion of governments dictating independent platform content politics.


  2. A translation of the message would be preferable. Guessing the language it was written isn’t easy – the first guess would be Hungarian due to your nationality, and only later – some of numerous Slavs languages.
    Is the text in the picture something similar to: “Daniel Vavra and his perfect redemption. Czech game Kingdom Come is a world hit.”?


  3. @Maxim: someone will have the power. Either the government or some oligarch. As for me, I’d rather put my life in the hands of Assad or Khameini than Soros or Koch, but I understand if you choose differently.

    @retsep: no translation needed. The guy is so “destroyed” that he is on the front of the Forbes with “King” title. The translation is by the way “Daniel Vavra and his perfect DELIVERANCE. Czech game Kingdom Come is a world hit.” It’s a joke on the game’s name.


  4. Is it OK to give a government the power to regulate content? No, it isn’t.
    However, the idea here is to give power to the government to NOT regulate content and prevent others from doing so.
    A paper is responsible for its authors because it chooses who is published, even if it doesn’t choose the specific words. Same should apply to YouTube or Facebook: they de facto choose who is published by putting some content in “trending” feed and relegating others from search results.


  5. Well that little libel trick is the same how hosts your shit without losing sweat.
    if people would run their own shit from the get go we wouldn’t have this situation in the first place. not like a decade of BBS practice was a hint. but no, people are stupid and lazy as fuck that’s pretty much the formula of success of the .com boom in the first place. making it that much simpler for tech monopoly. Or is the majority trying to not use microsoft or google software? We as the majority of dumb “users” are to blame here and making these companies so big. Today these companies are big enough to just flat out buy competition for more patents and tech. No wonder that on state level there has to be made regulations … and it is to late for it … we will see what these giants will do.


  6. So if under your law I post child porn videos on YouTube they won’t be able to do anything because they can’t censor. Reverse is also bad. If I am a movie studio and somebody uploads my movie to YouTube I won’t be able to do anything until government authorizes court order and who knows how long this will take.


  7. @Anon: yes, they shouldn’t censor you. They should report you to the authorities with your real name and address (which you had to provide with ID proof to create your channel).


  8. I could use my real I’d to post illegal videos or I could get an ID in the name of one of Equifax’s customers. Or just find an account with ‘password’ as password.

    US also recognizes right to anonymous speech so it’s very unlikely that requiring ID would legal anyway.


  9. @Anon: if you ID yourself in the name of an Equifax customer, you commit felony. I doubt if trolling worth it. Sure most people won’t be caught doing it, but some will be.
    There can be anonymous forums, but those are moderated by someone who takes responsibility for it. So you can comment anonymous at my blog – if I approve it. You really can’t expect a place where no one is responsible for the “speech” which can include child porn pictures.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s