How SOPA (as written) might kill ATS and free speech online (UPDATED)

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

Anyone who wants to be in the business (paid or unpaid, for profit or not-for-profit) will need to learn how to keep their house in order when it comes to issues of copy written material...

You do realize you've just contradicted yourself here by stating the above, don't you? You've been advocating that paid moderators are the only ones capable of being fully accountable. Now you've backpedaled to "anyone who wants to be in the business" needs to learn to keep house, presumably to be accountable. I thought you said paid moderators were the go-to accountable folks because of the paper trail created through pay, while volunteer moderators had no paper trail, and thus no accountability? Well? Which is it? Please clarify this.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


With all due respect, your analogy would be better served by posting those WRITTEN passages of the law to match up with your interpretation as you put it...

You have merely posted your interpretation of the law and how you THINK it MIGHT be enforced...

Hey, cops pull over speeders all of time...I can remember one time I was pulled over in Jeffersonville, IN, by a state trooper...was one of fifty cars doing 70 MPH in a 55 MPH zone...I had no argument...In other words, I could not say to the officer, "Why were you focused on my 2002 Yellow GMC Sonoma, instead of that 2005 Red Porsche 911?" Either I was speeding or not...there is no such thing as being partly pregnant...

Your argument sounds much the same, but if you put together the proposed legislation and your argumentation points, I think everyone could then see the facts as they stand and come to an appropriate conclusion...If you have already done this, then please point in the proper direction...

Thanks...

Originally posted by jeichelberg
With all due respect, your analogy would be better served by posting those WRITTEN passages of the law to match up up with your interpretation as you put it...

You have merely posted your interpretation of the law and how you THINK it MIGHT be enforced...

The same could easily be said for you...you haven't posted one reference, or backed up any or your arguments.

reply to post by Nyiah


No...I did not contradict myself...allow me to clarify....

Those people wishing to have moderators keep track of what is placed on site must be willing to pay those moderators to do the job...That way, the site owner can then hold them accountable to written standards and work conditions, including the issues related to posting copywritten material....Skeptic and the other site owners reap profits from the sale of billboard space on the site...the amount they receive is charged on the basis of site hits...simple...

If they choose to keep all of this to themselves, then they use unpaid moderators...but then they have no defense against SOPA, and can be held personally and directly accountable for violations...if they pay their moderators, they have an affirmative defense against SOPA in case of violation...but there goes a lot of money...

ZERO contradiction...

Those who pay their moderators have an affirmative defense if they take appropriate action against the MODERATOR and can keep their site....

Those who do not must do the dirty work themselves and are accountable themselves...

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by jeichelberg
With all due respect, your analogy would be better served by posting those WRITTEN passages of the law to match up up with your interpretation as you put it...

You have merely posted your interpretation of the law and how you THINK it MIGHT be enforced...

The same could easily be said for you...you haven't posted one reference, or backed up any or your arguments.

I did not make the original argument for OR against the issue of SOPA...perhaps you need to get a refresher on the process of debate...

And I have still offered factual evidence nonetheless...Fact is, this site makes profit for their owners...they do not want to share in those profits....any law that might force them to do so in order to remain compliant is viewed as a threat...

Originally posted by jeichelberg
I did not make the original argument for OR against the issue of SOPA...perhaps you need to get a refresher on the process of debate...

Here's a refresher, even when making a counter-argument you are expected to provide references and evidence to support your stance. You didn't even reference anything the OP referenced.

And I have still offered factual evidence nonetheless...

Not really...

Fact is, this site makes profit for their owners...

Fact, but evidence for nothing.

they do not want to share in those profits....

Evidence? Are you claiming that ATS practices in IP theft?

any law that might force them to do so in order to remain compliant is viewed as a threat...

Can you post some past evidence of this? A regular pattern as it were?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


The best I can say to this LMAO....you have read ZERO of my posts...or you would not make such a ridiculous post...

reply to post by jeichelberg


I'll accept your previous post's clarification, but this one needs further. Please, by all means, calculate how much revenue ATS generates annually, and how much their annual expenses are for keeping the site running. This includes certifications, any possible tech support, server space, server upgrades, etc. I don't think you truly understand the cost of operating such a large website. The small private sites I frequent with a few dozen, up to a few hundred people cost a good deal annually, surely ATS costs significantly more to run.
Until you can come up with at least a reasonable ballpark figure for both revenue & operating cost, I will define your insistence that SO is reaping a fat profit as being ill-informed & more than a little ignorant on the subject.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


The whole issue of profit is salient and evident for the reasons why SO and the other site owners do not want to pay their moderators...They want to keep the profits to themselves...

All I have stated here is that:

One - People have a right to their intellectual property...and the profits obtained from the sale or use of the intellectual property...Skeptic agrees with this way...

Two - The site owners here circumvent certain aspects of the concept of intellectual property by the use of T&C;
however, they cannot escape SOPA because now they will be responsible for all site content....they don't want to pay their moderators...fine, but makes them directly responsible for all content....either they do the job themselves or start to pay moderators to do it...That would be the SMART THING to do by the way (as long as they hold the moderators accountable to a legitimate work description), because they would then have an affirmative defense against any SOPA violations...

Very simple...if it is false, fine...I will say so...if it is proven false...so far, nothing contradicts it...

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


I've loosely followed their participation in this thread so far, and I'm basically seeing the same thing as yourself.

Many an assertion and assumption have been cast with regards How and What the owners and others are thinking and saying or why they are doing what they're doing.

All with absolutely no reference points or examples to either demonstrate or backup their claims. Which basically renders the entirety as baseless blatherings void any sort of foundation whatsoever.

Sounds a lot like 'opinions', if you ask me ... and we all know what they're akin to.

reply to post by Nyiah


Look, the amount of profit Skeptic makes is none of my business...my whole point concerning paid site moderation is simply this....AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE in case of violations of SOPA in terms of piracy or theft of intellectual property...that is all...I could give two shakes about the amount of money these people make here...

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


I do not need PAST EVIDENCE...there is the CURRENT EVIDENCE in your face...

reply to post by jeichelberg


Your logic is flawed. The owners are ultimately responsible for everything on ATS. It's their names on the partnership. Whether the staff are paid or not is a non-issue.

reply to post by jeichelberg

Those who pay their moderators have an affirmative defense if they take appropriate action against the MODERATOR and can keep their site....

Those who do not must do the dirty work themselves and are accountable themselves...

Post after post about Paid Moderation. You want to throw the Mods to the wolves. I don't.

Are you not aware that ATS has attorneys? They do.

Do you imagine somehow you know more about running this website than they do?

Stop huffing and puffing. Your argument is defeated.

reply to post by angeldoll


If my argument was defeated, then Skeptic will be right back on here with a proper debunk...

In which case, I will immediately follow with an appropriate mea culpa...

However, I am confident that I have provided an adequate explanation for all of it...and an appropriate way for the site owners to approach this issue...Their attorneys will either recognize it as legit or not...I think I am right...

EDIT TO READ: BY THE WAY...I am not throwing any moderators to the wolves and I resent the implication I am via my posts...Just because you do not understand what I attempting to communicate does not mean I will allow an inappropriate allusion to my efforts or stance to remain...

reply to post by intrepid


My argument is not flawed...you are correct in that:

The owners are ultimately responsible; HOWEVER,

Paid moderators can be held ACCOUNTABLE for job performance in a fashion that would meet the requirements of SOPA, thus maintaining "accountability," by ownership in a fashion that effectively SHIELDS them from real accountability....

Originally posted by jeichelberg
Paid moderators can be held ACCOUNTABLE for job performance in a fashion that would meet the requirements of SOPA, thus maintaining "accountability," by ownership in a fashion that effectively SHIELDS them from real accountability....

We are already accountable for our actions. Remuneration will change nothing, except my wallet. Now can we let this drop?

Originally posted by jeichelberg
I do not need PAST EVIDENCE...there is the CURRENT EVIDENCE in your face...

*Clears throat* I shall communicate like you do now.....WHERE? You have shown NO EVIDENCE!

And also way to go in your attempt to derail a thread about our 1st amendment rights, and trying to somehow make it about....paid moderators?

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


And allow me to clear my throat...AHEM...

Evidence is this:

Current Moderators are not PAID...


Current moderators can be held accountable for job performance, but not in a fashion that would meet the requirements of SOPA...that is, that would shield the site owners from penalties...