timdev2

Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services is only tenuously related to your gripe about websites removing content. Stratton didn't sue Prodigy for taking down posts by Stratton. They sued Prodigy for not taking down allegedly defamatory posts by users.

I asked you to provide a cause of action for "censorship" by a web site. SOvP isn't that. A more recent, federal, and better-fitting case would be PragerU vs. YouTube. There, PragerU sued over their content being remove/restricted. They lost on 230 grounds. But even without 230, they almost certainly would have lost on 1A grounds, because YouTube's exercise of editorial discretion about what content they host is clearly 1A protected activity.

Going back to Stratton Oakmont for a moment: I understand the argument that, absent the liability shield in 230, content moderation of less-than-clearly-illegal content would be vanishingly rare. Web sites would seek to avoid potential liability by getting out of the content-moderation business, which would fix your issue. I'm not convinced that would actually be the outcome. Even if it were, I wouldn't enjoy every web site devolving into 4chan-but-covered-in-spam.

I'm asking you for a hypothetical - they can be acting with as much or as little "good faith" as you like.

Okay, let's just strike the "otherwise objectionable" at the end of (c)(2)(A):

What cause of action do you imagine you'd have that wouldn't be barred by 1A?

Imagine a world where Section 230 doesn't exist. A mean corporation takes down your post, or bans you.

What cause of action do you imagine you'd have that wouldn't be barred by 1A?

By and large, 230 acts merely as a procedural fast-last to dismiss suits earlier than they'd otherwise be. But they'd ultimately be decided the same way on first amendment grounds.

Have you considered that your problem is not with Section 230, but with the First Amendment?

These companies, and the systems and platforms they own, have not become "the public square" any more than a widely read newspaper, or the only Kinkos in town have. Nor are they utilities.

You're using words and phrases with significant legal implications to characterize things that don't meet the well-understood legal definitions.

I don't think you're being dishonest, but I fear you've been bamboozled by the dishonest arguments of others, and are now parroting them.

I may not like the decisions made by private companies, but private companies doing things I don't like w/r/t hosting speech is preferable to getting state power involved.

I don't like Nazi's marching in Skokie. And I don't like what the right insists of calling "cancel culture". But both of those things are constitutionally protected for good reason, and those rights are worth defending.

I don't see how Packingham or Marsh are likely to be relevant here.

While the former has some lofty language about central social media has become in society, it's still a decision about state action.

Marsh seems like a reach as well - PragerU tried that and it didn't work. I'm not convinced Parler would fare any better here.

The pledge itself is creepy but isn't a free speech issue. Compelled recitation of the pledge by agents of the state, like schools, at least to me, is.

Not everything that isn't a common carrier is a traditional publisher. Bars, for example.

Twitter has a 1st Amendment right to decide what you may or may not read on Twitter.

That doesn't explain what "agreements" you think twitter is "breaking". There's a lot of disinformation about 230 floating around, but as the EFF page points out, it's a broad protection. It isn't at all contingent on them behaving like a common carrier.

> How do you feel about registering hate speech in a domain name, or someone else's trademark?

In the US, all kinds of speech is "awful but lawful", including hate speech. I don't think registrars should be policing legal speech.

If there's trademark infringement going on, there are legal processes to which the injured parties can avail themselves.

If there's more serious criminality afoot, law enforcement should generally lead.

I don't like the idea of unpopular but legal speech being scrubbed from the public internet because people object loudly to it. I think domain registrars (and other infrastructure vendors) are qualitatively different than social media properties, etc, in this regard.

Many retail stores do this to their vendors. Amazon does it to it's "sellers", which are really just a category of "customers". As an amazon seller, you pay for the privilege of selling through their platform.

It's certainly limiting, though you can write (or find implementations[0] of) custom types[1] that can be pretty powerful (void where prohibited, limitations apply).

[0] https://github.com/martin-georgiev/postgresql-for-doctrine [1] https://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-dbal/en/2...

Right. That. An ORM for (only) PostgreSQL would seem odd -- though I do wonder if that might pay off in some ways.

> you automatically invalidate one of ORMs biggest selling points which is being SQL-database agnostic.

I haven't heard anyone talk seriously about database-agnosticism since the very early 2000s. Maybe some commercial products still try (choose MS or Oracle!), but it's rare nowadays.

The primary selling point of an ORM is that it abstracts marshaling/un-marshaling rows to/from entities. Instantiating and persisting entities to relational storage.

> And by "drop into", this typically means writing custom stitching code that stitches the SQL cursor results back into the models again. It's rarely straightforward.

That's not typical in most uses I've seen. Far more typical are things like:

- Go straight to SQL for reporting, since that's what SQL does. Useful in reporting contexts, and also for list/filter UI screens.

- Use raw SQL to query a list of entity IDs for updating based on some complex criteria. Iterate over the identifiers and perform whatever logic you need to before letting the ORM handle all the persistence concerns.

Anecdotally, I observed daytime public intravenous drug use within my first 3 hours on the ground in Frankfurt a few years ago. I don't know exactly where, but it was within walking radius of the main train station. I think it was in/adjacent to some kind of red-light district.

You replied to a post complaining that the policy also seemed to be giving violent individuals a pass, and accused them of "think[ing] that non-violent addicts should be put into prison". Which was neither said nor (as you claim) implied. The comment was explicitly bemoaning a perceived plague of "repeat violent drug addicts"

What strict gun laws in Seattle are you referring to, exactly?

Last time I rented from Avis I didn't even sign paperwork. I made the reservation, then changed it from the app on my phone in the airport before my flight. After I arrived, I went to the rental area, the app directed me to a car. I got in, and drove to the exit where I handed my driver license to an attendant who returned it with a receipt within 30 seconds and opened the gate allowing me egress. I was very pleasantly surprised at how improved the customer experience was.

In the context of an administrative search at the airport, security guards can already just search whomever. Arguably, the machines are able to clear ~50% of travelers and exempt them from a more intrusive search.

Or you put off getting care because you don't want to spend a four-figure sum only to find out it's a problem that will resolve itself. I know people, with insurance and without, that have done just that.

The passport control officers were probably upset/suspicious because they couldn't establish when the family entered the country (or schengen zone), and thus couldn't confirm that they hadn't overstayed.

From the officer's perspective, here's this Canadian with no entry stamp in their passport. One would assume that the usual procedure for expats to renew their passport is to do it through the embassy or consulate in their country of residence.

I don't disagree substantively with your sentiments, but you're conflating TSA and CBP.

TSA is ostensibly about security on airplanes (or more realistically "security theatre"), and are not law enforcement. You primarily deal with them before getting on an airplane in the US, for nearly all commercial flights (both international and domestic).

CBP are law enforcement officers in the customs (contraband, taxes, etc) and immigration (passport control, visas) domains operating at the border. If you're traveling by plane, you primarily deal with them after you disembark from an international flight.

It's not an awful way to do things, provided your app can run comfortably in a lambda. You get dev ergonomics (run locally like a traditional app), and you avoid cold-starts for infrequently-invoked endpoints.

You still get all the "serverless" benefits of FaaS, but don't need to architect absolutely everything around that paradigm. If in the future you want to move to running the thing on instances, you can do so pretty trivially.

I've seen that situation as well. My approach recently has been to build things where running on Lambda is a feature, and not so much an architectural decision. The aws-serverless-express library basically wraps an express (or other similar framework) app to handle interfacing with the lambda, marshaling lambda "event" data into the framework request interface, for example.

Mostly because databases are the key piece o data-persistence infrastructure. Spinning up a MySQL db to dev against, or a single server for a hobby project is quick and easy.

In production, all of a sudden you have a lot of work to do, especially around HA. Figure out replication, get it working, figure out how to monitor/alert if it stops working, figure out failover, figure out how to test that failover actually works, etc.

Support around that stuff has improved over the years, but it's still non-trivial and high-risk to DIY. It's a very different scenario than a stateless app server where you can have easy redundancy.

Completely disagree. Absentee ballots work fine already. Who needs the feature creep of a nationwide interlinked voting system.

Voting via the browser is such a terrible idea for manifold reasons that ought to be obvious.

Probable cause is a low bar, but it's quantifiably higher than no bar. What constitutes sufficient PC for a warrant is a related, but distinct issue from whether PC (however interpreted) is required at all.

I'm worried that paranoia is a thing of the past. I somewhat concerned that a (free) national ID scheme will be the result of the "Voter ID" push from the GOP in recent years.