Andy on Twitter

  • Would be consistent with what they’ve done around the world. And their right to do so. What the Aussie Govt is prop… ,
  • It’s interesting to me how when a company () details how it will respond to legislation it is deemed by the… ,
  • Good read on the interference of Govt in how the Internet works... Internet's founder, US officials slap down News… ,
  • OMG. So sad... ,
  • Good look at the impacts of SAH on compliance and tech... Be Prepared to Stay at Home in 2021 – even if you don’t w… ,
  • Dense Discovery is still my favourite newsletter. Look forward to it each week. Well worth supporting IMHO.… ,
  • Great read... I Feel Better Now | Jake Bittle ,
  • Another great example of cluelessness. Google has a right to exercise inordinate power over its own products. Just… ,
  • via ... is hard for us here to laugh. States now run the country abs SOMO sitting on the sidelines. ,
  • Still a bit surprising to me how often people confuse a successful company with a monopoly. And how they will compl… ,
  • And what about the rest of the Internet... they'll ask to dip their hand into the Google coffers as well... this is… ,
  • And oh, isn't Google fully within its rights to say "nah, don't think so, "we'll just stop surfacing news we have t… ,
  • Connect

Wikilibel

CNet follows through on it’s earlier story regarding “editorial” issues at Wikipedia – this time looking at the libel angle. At the end of the day though, Wikipedia appears safe from claims:
Thanks to section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which became law in 1996, Wikipedia is most likely safe from legal liability for libel, regardless of how long an inaccurate article stays on the site. That’s because it is a service provider as opposed to a publisher such as Salon.com or CNN.com.
This is also the same for a TypePad – but it isn’t the same for an individual blogger.

Speak Up — Add Your Thoughts

Connections

  • Connect
How did you connect?   [?]