Tag: Section 230

Google Maps Is Misleading Users Searching For Abortion Clinics…And The GOP Is Threatening The Company If It Fixes That

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)1 Comment

Google Maps Is Misleading Users Searching For Abortion Clinics… And The GOP Is Threatening The Company If It Fixes That

Related:

Google Maps Regularly Misleads People Searching for Abortion Clinics

“When my partner left the room, I mentioned that I was in an abusive relationship,” said Chey, who asked that her full name be withheld for medical privacy reasons. The staff working at the CPC said that was all the more reason to have the baby. “They told me that carrying a pregnancy could help repair my relationship, that it would cause my partner to step up as a man, and that I would find purpose in life again.”

Domestic Violence And Pregnancy

Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than any other cause of death.

A significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners.

Domestic violence during pregnancy puts your life and the life of your baby at risk.

Domestic violence is the number one cause of injury to women.

Abusive partners do not stop their violence after the baby is born.

Abusive partners do not become good fathers after the baby is born.

Abuse and Domestic Violence During Pregnancy

Democrats Hope To Gotcha The GOP With Doomed New Net Neutrality Bill

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

As we’ve long noted, the Trump era attack on net neutrality was one of the more grotesque examples of regulatory capture and corruption in Internet policy history.

The rules, which imposed some very modest restrictions on giant telecom monopolies to prevent them from abusing market power, were very popular among consumers of all political stripes. And the Trump FCC’s repeal involved using a lot of outright lies and even fake and dead people to reduce the oversight of extremely unpopular telecom monopolies.

Despite the Democrats controlling the FCC for more than a year and a half, they still haven’t done anything about it.

Democrats Hope To Gotcha The GOP With Doomed New Net Neutrality Bill

New York Democrat introduces new social media censorship bill

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

The bill aims to curb people’s speech by targeting platforms By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 27, 2021

If a state senator got his way, the state of New York could soon get a new law aimed at regulating what content can appear on social media. The bill is designed to circumvent existing federal-level solutions in some instances and is reportedly inspired by internal documents leaked by former Facebook employee Frances Haugen.

New York Democrat introduces new social media censorship bill

The Internet Is Not Facebook; Regulating It As If It Were Will Fuck Things Up

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

The Internet Is Not Facebook; Regulating It As If It Were Will Fuck Things Up

There’s only one problem: What is health misinformation? I know of no oracular source of truth about Covid-19. Scientific consensus has shifted dramatically during the pandemic, and even now experts are divided over important issues, such as whether everyone should get a vaccine booster shot. Klobuchar and Luján’s bill elides these complications. Instead they designate an all-knowing authority: Health misinformation, the bill says, is whatever the secretary of health and human services decides is health misinformation.

Dear Section 230 Critics: When Senators Hawley And Cruz Are Your Biggest Allies, It’s Time To Rethink

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Dear Section 230 Critics: When Senators Hawley And Cruz Are Your Biggest Allies, It’s Time To Rethink

Related:

Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation

Long time Techdirt readers will already be screaming about this. This claim is not just wrong, it’s very, very ignorant about the 1st Amendment. The “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater” line was a throwaway line in an opinion by Justice Holmes that was actually about jailing someone for handing out anti-war pamphlets. It was never actually standard for 1st Amendment jurisprudence, and was effectively overturned in later cases, meaning it is not an accurate statement of law.