sqdbps

I think you're understating how much of this law is about EU resentment of US tech companies' mindshare and marketshare.

It's US corporate profit since they are profits (revenue - expenses) made by a US corporation. This is not a tax law, what are you talking about?

Not since the new tax code went into effect, but what does that has to do with anything?

Why would the US congress want Facebook to go out of their way to maximise their liability to a piece of legislation intended to cripple US corporations and supplement EU budgets with US corporate profits?!

Congress should convene a hearing about how current and incoming EU laws are thinly veiled protectionism against US corporations and what should be done about it.

So does the news industry.

Funny, I thought the "A" in AWS stands for Amazon where I as an individual bought a thing recently using my MS Windows powered PC, again as an individual.

They should stop doing that.

I mean who's stopping China from using AI powered military robots? they should think about the bigger picture.

Also I think they should invoke AI powered military robots in recruiting, what's cooler than that?!

"As Google defends its contracts from internal dissent, its competitors have not been shy about publicizing their own work on defense projects. Amazon touts its image recognition work with the Department of Defense, and Microsoft has promoted the fact that its cloud technology won a contract to handle classified information for every branch of the military and defense agencies."

Google should stop hiring activists and start hiring pragmatists.

Of course not. I'm referring to hints of victim blaming in the media: https://www.recode.net/2018/4/4/17196704/youtube-susan-wojci...

Actually there are no expectations in the text of the first amendment but that is for another discussion.

As for libel Google isn't the party that wrote that statement so they aren't liable for libel.

The yelling "fire" thing is a WWI era anachronism that wouldn't hold today.

As for incitement, intent must be proven.

Free speech is very well protected in the US.

I'm both actually.

The media’s part in this:

For whatever reason they started scouring youtube for “controversial” videos checking if they had ads (no matter how little views they had) then they would contact the advertisers for comment.

Advertisers would initiate damage control and pull their ads from youtube.

Youtube would explain that the numbers and views in question are insignificant and that this type of complex system can never be 100% error free but they reluctantly imposed restrictions.

After successfully manufacturing a story and gaining attention and traffic reporters continued scouring and contacting advertisers forcing youtube to enact tougher restrictions.

They then would extended the coverage to the anger in the youtube community and how it’s tough for them out there with all the latest policy changes.

Rinse, repeat; keep reporting on any video you find disagreeable no matter how little views it has.

. . .

Be sure to remind youtube of their power and responsibility after tragedy strikes.

Them's the breaks. Free speech is of loftier purpose than preserving the reputation of a hedgefund guy.

It's also ironic and quite frankly terrifying that a news outlet would be lamenting the extensive free speech protections in the US.

This is apparently a part of a series exploring the trendy technopanic of "fake news online", which increasingly looks like a campaign by old media to reclaim their gatekeeping status even if that means thumbing their noses at the first amendment.

Companies use patents defensively and the Times is fully aware of that so this comes across as cynical clickbait.

What I find interesting is that they keep quoting "consumer watchdog" an anti google organization turned anti technology (they're against self driving cars and robots now).

The scary thing is that mainstream respected news outlets casually traffic in technophobia as evident form articles about automation and AI for example and how every piece mentioning a tech company is permeated with FUD about their motivations or their "power".

Evidently we're at the outraged-explainer-porn stage of the media manufactured panic cycle. They are certainly using every part of that buffalo.

This is ridiculous. Google won two jury trials and the CAFC has no business deciding copyright cases.

Generally what's good for US companies is good for the US and its people, I'm fine with a legislative response to the equifax breach, something along the line of mandated disclosure and penalties for lax security but we are in the midst of a global battle and so our tech firms must be protected and not assailed by our gov't.

The US must not introduce any laws detrimental to US companies especially when China is bolstering their tech firms (and stealing our IP) and the EU is trying everything short of altogether outlawing US tech companies out of their market.

Just ride out this silly populist convulsion and we'll all be the better for it.

No one really thinks that the earth is flat it's just attention seeking behavior.

Print ads were always backed by market research and data brokerage (buying lists of magazine subscribers, club memberships etc).

As for storing data that is generated by their platform that is these companies' prerogative, it's their data as much as it is yours.

The Equifax thing didn't result in regulation and that was an actual scandal with real ramification not a pile-on by a press seeking to vilify an ad financed competitor.

Funny how the Times is using silly metafilter vernacular now:

"the consumer surveillance model" -- it's the same business model that's been supporting news publication for more than a century.

As for the GDPR it's similar to the recent digital tax proposal and numerous other initiatives by the EU intended to attack US businesses, the US government doesn't share that motivation and it must condemn and push against these EU actions.

Campanies are made of people and their economic impact goes far beyond those they directly employ.

It's not a direct democracy is it? these representatives are not blindly beholden to the whims of every Tom, Dick and Harry, they are also entrusted with the wellbeing of their constituency which ultimately means supporting existing and emerging local enterprises.

The state's interests are in the companies interests and vice versa, they share in prosperity.

At a time when outsiders are going after them at least their home state should be relied upon not to follow suite.

Whatever happened to 'our business is business'?

Protect them from what? this is a partisan knee jerk reaction to goings on in DC. More importantly these actions are potentially detrimental to local companies the interests of which are intertwined with the state's.

Patchwork state privacy and net neutrality regulations are cumbersome and ridiculous. Any such requirements should be debated and enacted on the federal level.

It's not just a shield for Facebook and Google it's a shield for every website and app out there,and it's the greatest facilitator of free speech online.

Not only did the headline conveniently omit that fact but the whole pieces was edited to make it seem like only zealots and anarchists have any interest in preserving section 230.

Senator Wyden who voted against SESTA was trying to convey that this change is unwise and short sighted and will actually hurt the efforts to combat human trafficking yet only his criticism of tech firms survived the edit.

It's a great irony that the press keeps calling for limits on speech online perhaps hoping that when everyone else is silenced theirs will be the only voice heard.

Hyenas all of 'em.

One has to remember that these news orgs are in competition with Facebook and their coverage should be considered with that in mind.

The eurocrats must be loving this, instead of scrutinizing their discriminatory tax proposal targeting our tech sector our press and politicians are attacking our companies for them.

"The move has left organizations offering services to the LGBT community unable to directly target their audiences."

Some of the benefits of ad targeting that some want to restrict and regulate into oblivion.

WTO and counter measures by affected countries.