The second article is problematic as a source (it appears to be about some sort of COVID-related conspiracy), but more importantly, what the f&$k does that have to do with anything?
You corporate bootlickers will gladly tolerate censorship as long as it's Google doing it and not the government.
False. For one thing, this law affects far more than just Google. For another, Techdirt has been critical of Google and other big corporations in the past, including when they actually attempt (or succeed) in censoring someone (though I cannot think of a single instance of Google doing so).
The problem here is that you call moderation “censorship”, and that’s simply not the case.
When Google censors opinions offensive to its investors and advertisers, it's their right because muh private property.
And also free speech and free association, but yeah, it’s their private property, so they get to decide who can be on their platform. That’s how it works.
And again, they aren’t censoring anyone. They are moderating. Learn the difference.
It’s also worth noting that YouTube rarely removes videos themself except for when copyright is involved. Usually, when it comes to offensive content, they only demonetize, downrank, or add Wikipedia links to the video in question. There may be some exceptions involving nudity or something like that, but that’s it. Similarly, Google usually only downranks results that are “offensive” or anything like that; they remove search results in compliance with the law when ordered (usually involving copyright or defamation), but not content that advertisers and investors dislike. And if the content is still accessible without fear of punishment, it’s not censorship.
When the government demands everyone be given a fair platform, suddenly you're all MUH RETHUGLICANS and LITERALLY HITLER.
Never compared anyone to Hitler, but when the government forces a private company (or individual or organization) to allow anyone and everyone to use their private platform and to never remove content they find objectionable from their platform except in specific cases, that’s infringing their 1A rights.
These two ideas you object to are fully consistent with each other and a vigorous defense of free speech and the 1A.
Thankfully I'm sure the giant corps are on your side and you will never be the target of your own short sightedness... right?
You… are aware these laws target a lot more than just the giant corporations, right? Like, both Wikipedia and Techdirt are affected by these laws just as much as Facebook or Twitter. Same with any private individual’s blog that allows third-party content (like a comment section) that happens to have enough followers.
But even if it was so narrowly targeted that only giant corporations were affected, that wouldn’t change the fact that the law is unconstitutional. I—and TechDirt and many people who read this site at least semi-regularly—firmly believe that we should object to any unconstitutional law even if we believe it’s a “good” law and regardless of exactly whose rights are violated by that law. If it infringes on someone’s rights, that alone is sufficiently a problem.
We are aware of being judged abroad with stereotypes, as a stupid population to be exploited and then blamed at the same time. By a bunch of racist politicians from other countries that use ignorance and prejudice for their purposes.
This has nothing to do with racism or stereotypes. We’re of the opinion that abuse of trademarks—like the one you mentioned about Tokaji and Tokai—and dumb oppositions to trademarks—like the one mentioned in the article—are both problems. Which country or nationality is involved is irrelevant.
Sadly, no. As many bad actors and crazy people there are at the federal level, there are even more at the state level. Exhibit A: Florida. Exhibit B: Texas. Exhibit C: police unions. We also have Trump who is not currently in DC. There’s also the public who enable them.
"Having the key" was a one-time event. (You did get that last question correct, didn't you?) The FBI had an opportunity to "catch the crooks". Or they could make the key public, and see the key stop being useful within hours: if not from direct publicity, then by companies no longer rolling over so readily.
I’m not so sure that it was a one-time event. Given how the government got the key the first time, it’s possible they could have gotten it again later.
Nor am I convinced that they could have caught the crooks through this method or that such a method was the only way to do so.
Also, “It would stop being useful”? Well, duh. The ransomware would be useless, and the crooks would have no way of knowing how the key was acquired, so the attack would likely stop.
The FBI gambled, that by withholding the key from publication, the malware group wouldn't startle and disappear before they could be tracked down. They lost. Had the FBI succeeded, you would be hailing them as limited, temporary heroes in an unwinnable war (or an eternal struggle, if you prefer).
You wouldn’t be entirely correct on that. Again: the ends don’t justify the means.
And, once again, people fail to understand what trademark actually does. People won’t stop calling it “Prosek” if the trademark gets rejected. They were already calling it that, which is why they’re applying for a trademark. They’re trying to keep others from calling their products “Prosek”. That’s it. It’s just like with Schlaffly Beer.
So if the Italian government is trying to prevent people from calling non-Italian beverages “Prosek”, this won’t help.
I’ll address this in full later, but I want to address this right now.
Letting a man in a dress, as I’ve brought up multiple times, sit in a stall in a “woman’s” toilet is asking for trouble in our repressive culture.
As I’ve commonly said, how would you know? Very, very few people with male parts who actually try to use the women’s restroom look any different from people with female parts who try to use the women’s restroom, so if you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing in the restroom, no one should have any trouble.
No. I understand what your saying but it’s historically inaccurate due to linguistics.
The practice predates the term. The term, in multiple language variations has always been religious.
False. Marriage existed in ancient times and had nothing to do with religion. Obviously, the English term “marriage” was related to the religious practice, but other terms in other languages existed that meant “marriage” and had nothing to do with religion.
This is where the small minority of us on the left break away from the progressive movement.
We don’t want equality and many, including me, think the idea of gay “marriage” or atheist “marriage” is ludicrous. The fight is backwards.
The domestic partnership should be catapulted to the top and marriage should be de-legalised going forward.
Again, I believe that the distinction you make between a domestic partnership and marriage is without a meaningful difference. They refer to the same social practice, and both use the same sort of ceremonies. Additionally, historically speaking, the idea that marriage has always been a one-man-one-woman since ancient times is simply false. It’s wasn’t even always so restricted in the Bible, which includes polygamy.
The benefit is it gives the nutters back their term and they then can’t say a damn thing about what law says as to religion.
It was never their term to begin with, and since they still complained about civil unions, I doubt that that’d shut them up. Plus, several churches practiced gay marriage even before it was legally recognized, so they wouldn’t get “their” term back anyways.
At any rate, like I said, neither the concept, the practice, nor the term (in various languages) have ever been exclusively religious, so we’d be giving them something that was never theirs to begin with. Religious fanatics don’t own the term and never have. They may think they do, but they are factually wrong.
The Mormons and Muslims and whatever want their 30 wives and 30 husbands? Have at it.
But they won’t be trying to claim 30 dependents.
You solve all the negatives with one action.
I… think Muslims max out at, like, 8 wives per person, and only the FCLDS recognizes plural marriages, but whatever. I still fail to see how anything is actually solved here. That’s already the case now.
I honestly fail to see any recourse unrooted in the government violence monopoly which could either shut that lady up or keep her away from being a total douchebag bringing the joys of stalker victim syndrome to a minority community.
Social consequences. Name them and shame them. Record them to potentially gather evidence of legal wrongdoing; if they have a problem with that, then they’re a hypocrite. That’s the whole thing about the 1A.
I find it unlikely, on the face of it. You can't very well issue a restraining order protecting an entire community, and you can't even invoke such an order without a threat assessment a few orders of magnitude beyond "persistent bullying".
Monetary sanctions are also in play, you know. Possibly jail time. But I’m not arguing about the severity or effectiveness of the legal punishment. You said there is no recourse, not that the recourse is insufficient.
The US, on the contrary, appears to take quiet pride in the fact that everyone's entitled to be a malicious douchebag, no matter how much direct harm that actually causes. And that's just taking freedom to the point where the Paradox of Tolerance comes in and a community of civilized people are made to suffer because they are not the same sort of assholes as the stalker making their lives miserable and the law remains solidly on the side of the abuser rather than the victims.
I firmly disagree with that assessment. For one thing, where direct harm is provable, there is usually some recourse. More importantly, we prefer to have the consequences be social rather than legal outside of certain bounds. That I agree people should have the legal right to be a douchebag doesn’t mean I think they should be able to be a douchebag without consequences.
Again: legal =/= moral or consequence-free, nor should it.
marriages
The fact that stupid uptight book people decided to use the term from religion in law is the single and sole problem here.
Marriage is a religious act.
Like everything else the book people did in history they stole something from other people and claimed it as their own. Then get mad when it’s used outside their new definition. See eg Yule, Harvest, Eastervonder.
I believe the LGBT community is after the wrong thing and have always believed that. Whilst most of the community is looking for marriage equality I seek the de-legalisation of marriage.
I am not alone.
Actually, marriage (by which I mean a long-term pairing or grouping of people for the purposes of cohabitation and some combination of child-rearing, reproduction, sexual activities, inheritance, and/or romance) predates the religious practice of marriage. It wasn’t always legally recognized, but it was socially recognized long before it became linked to religion. In fact, countries like Japan recognized marriage irrespective of religion for a very long time. So you really have the whole thing backwards. The idea of marriage was not originally religious in nature; the religious aspects came later. And currently, atheists can get married, so whatever it used to be, marriage isn’t defined by religion anymore.
Additionally, having marriage legally recognized confers several benefits regarding medical decisions, finances, child-rearing, ownership, taxation, inheritance, etc. That’s one of the reasons why having separate “civil unions” wasn’t going to work: the two weren’t legally equal.
If what you’re proposing is to replace the term “marriage” as defined in law with “civil union”, I mean, I guess, but there really would be no point to it, and it’d be a huge pain in the ass for no actual benefit.
On top of that, the religious definitions have differed between and within religions, so…
I’m talking about tossing 15 year old teenagers in a single shower in a country so dedicated to hiding sexuality and ignoring proper understanding…
I’m okay with having separate showers for them. Or be less dedicated to hiding sexuality. Either is fine.
"What happens when a 16yo “female” boy gets a hard on in the girls locker room and discovers they’re really bi/pan/etc."
What happens when a male boy gets a hard-on in a boys’ locker room and discovers he’s really gay/bi/pan/etc.? If it can be handled there, why not in the girls’ locker room?
Also, I’m personally in favor of having locker rooms set up so that no one can see anyone’s privates.
Is the school ready to deal with that. With the students, with the parents. Etc.
Again, I really think this whole issue could be easily sidestepped with locker rooms set up so no one can see anyone’s privates. But if not, then there should be people who are ready to deal with that in the schools.
I absolutely cry foul for the way they are going about it.
How are they going about it that’s a problem? Like I said, I see no fundamental difference between your proposed scenario and with having homosexual or bisexual cisgender people share a locker room with people with the same gender.
The 1A protects shouting fire in a crowded theater when there's a fire. Not to panic the patrons.
If you can prove intent or something, possibly.
If you think masks are useless can shout it all you want. You're free to share an opinion.
Which was all I was saying.
When asked to back up that opinion with facts however, you should be held accountable for lying. If you're just having an argument in a forum like this, the penalty is a loss of respect and standing.
Agreed.
If you make a living sharing the news and commenting on what that news means for a larger audience then you have a much larger responsibility and bad faith, especially a business model built on bad faith, should be penalized.
That’s not how it works. Opinions based on disclosed facts are protected equally for everyone. The penalty is still based on social consequences.
Today it is rewarded.
Which is a problem with those people doing the rewarding, but it is also penalized by others. We can’t control everyone.
On the post: Texas' Unconstitutional Social Media Censorship Bill Challenged In Court, Just As Texas Joins The Legal Fight For Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Bill
Re: Re: 'I don't know' versus 'I don't care'
The second article is problematic as a source (it appears to be about some sort of COVID-related conspiracy), but more importantly, what the f&$k does that have to do with anything?
On the post: Texas' Unconstitutional Social Media Censorship Bill Challenged In Court, Just As Texas Joins The Legal Fight For Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Bill
Re: Abbott is right though.
False. For one thing, this law affects far more than just Google. For another, Techdirt has been critical of Google and other big corporations in the past, including when they actually attempt (or succeed) in censoring someone (though I cannot think of a single instance of Google doing so).
The problem here is that you call moderation “censorship”, and that’s simply not the case.
And also free speech and free association, but yeah, it’s their private property, so they get to decide who can be on their platform. That’s how it works.
And again, they aren’t censoring anyone. They are moderating. Learn the difference.
It’s also worth noting that YouTube rarely removes videos themself except for when copyright is involved. Usually, when it comes to offensive content, they only demonetize, downrank, or add Wikipedia links to the video in question. There may be some exceptions involving nudity or something like that, but that’s it. Similarly, Google usually only downranks results that are “offensive” or anything like that; they remove search results in compliance with the law when ordered (usually involving copyright or defamation), but not content that advertisers and investors dislike. And if the content is still accessible without fear of punishment, it’s not censorship.
Never compared anyone to Hitler, but when the government forces a private company (or individual or organization) to allow anyone and everyone to use their private platform and to never remove content they find objectionable from their platform except in specific cases, that’s infringing their 1A rights.
These two ideas you object to are fully consistent with each other and a vigorous defense of free speech and the 1A.
You… are aware these laws target a lot more than just the giant corporations, right? Like, both Wikipedia and Techdirt are affected by these laws just as much as Facebook or Twitter. Same with any private individual’s blog that allows third-party content (like a comment section) that happens to have enough followers.
But even if it was so narrowly targeted that only giant corporations were affected, that wouldn’t change the fact that the law is unconstitutional. I—and TechDirt and many people who read this site at least semi-regularly—firmly believe that we should object to any unconstitutional law even if we believe it’s a “good” law and regardless of exactly whose rights are violated by that law. If it infringes on someone’s rights, that alone is sufficiently a problem.
On the post: Italy Vows To Bring Entire Government To Bear To Oppose Croatian 'Prosek' Trademark
Re:
I don’t believe that the article says anything to the contrary.
On the post: Italy Vows To Bring Entire Government To Bear To Oppose Croatian 'Prosek' Trademark
Re: Re: Re: many things you are omitting
This has nothing to do with racism or stereotypes. We’re of the opinion that abuse of trademarks—like the one you mentioned about Tokaji and Tokai—and dumb oppositions to trademarks—like the one mentioned in the article—are both problems. Which country or nationality is involved is irrelevant.
On the post: FBI Sat On Ransomware Decryption Key For Weeks As Victims Lost Millions Of Dollars
Re:
Sadly, no. As many bad actors and crazy people there are at the federal level, there are even more at the state level. Exhibit A: Florida. Exhibit B: Texas. Exhibit C: police unions. We also have Trump who is not currently in DC. There’s also the public who enable them.
On the post: FBI Sat On Ransomware Decryption Key For Weeks As Victims Lost Millions Of Dollars
Re:
I’m not so sure that it was a one-time event. Given how the government got the key the first time, it’s possible they could have gotten it again later.
Nor am I convinced that they could have caught the crooks through this method or that such a method was the only way to do so.
Also, “It would stop being useful”? Well, duh. The ransomware would be useless, and the crooks would have no way of knowing how the key was acquired, so the attack would likely stop.
You wouldn’t be entirely correct on that. Again: the ends don’t justify the means.
On the post: FBI Sat On Ransomware Decryption Key For Weeks As Victims Lost Millions Of Dollars
Re:
Since they failed, and we have no knowledge of the same actors doing the same thing in the future, it seems pointless to speculate.
On the post: FBI Sat On Ransomware Decryption Key For Weeks As Victims Lost Millions Of Dollars
Re:
CDC? Maybe?
On the post: Minnesota Dept. Of Public Safety Now Handing Out License/Insurance Carriers In Hopes Of Keeping Cops From Killing More Drivers
Re: Re: Pouches might not be the problem here
I think they’re more of the mind that they’re happy to not be associated with us. Like, “This is what you wanted independence for? Seriously?”
On the post: Texas' Unconstitutional Social Media Censorship Bill Challenged In Court, Just As Texas Joins The Legal Fight For Florida's Unconstitutional Social Media Bill
Re: Redefining everything
Exactly! Those are the advanced techniques! You need to work your way up to that level of doublespeak or you might hurt yourself!
On the post: Italy Vows To Bring Entire Government To Bear To Oppose Croatian 'Prosek' Trademark
IDTTMWYTIM
And, once again, people fail to understand what trademark actually does. People won’t stop calling it “Prosek” if the trademark gets rejected. They were already calling it that, which is why they’re applying for a trademark. They’re trying to keep others from calling their products “Prosek”. That’s it. It’s just like with Schlaffly Beer.
So if the Italian government is trying to prevent people from calling non-Italian beverages “Prosek”, this won’t help.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’ll address this in full later, but I want to address this right now.
As I’ve commonly said, how would you know? Very, very few people with male parts who actually try to use the women’s restroom look any different from people with female parts who try to use the women’s restroom, so if you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing in the restroom, no one should have any trouble.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
False. Marriage existed in ancient times and had nothing to do with religion. Obviously, the English term “marriage” was related to the religious practice, but other terms in other languages existed that meant “marriage” and had nothing to do with religion.
Again, I believe that the distinction you make between a domestic partnership and marriage is without a meaningful difference. They refer to the same social practice, and both use the same sort of ceremonies. Additionally, historically speaking, the idea that marriage has always been a one-man-one-woman since ancient times is simply false. It’s wasn’t even always so restricted in the Bible, which includes polygamy.
It was never their term to begin with, and since they still complained about civil unions, I doubt that that’d shut them up. Plus, several churches practiced gay marriage even before it was legally recognized, so they wouldn’t get “their” term back anyways.
At any rate, like I said, neither the concept, the practice, nor the term (in various languages) have ever been exclusively religious, so we’d be giving them something that was never theirs to begin with. Religious fanatics don’t own the term and never have. They may think they do, but they are factually wrong.
I… think Muslims max out at, like, 8 wives per person, and only the FCLDS recognizes plural marriages, but whatever. I still fail to see how anything is actually solved here. That’s already the case now.
On the post: New Report On Predictive Policing Shows How New Tech Is Giving Us Little More Than The Same Old Racism
In other breaking news, water is wet, people need food, and racist assholes talk online.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Threatens Amazon For Selling Books Containing Misinformation; Perhaps Forgetting The 1st Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I’m saying that such an absolutist position is unworkable without getting too much in the way of collateral damage.
The best weapon against speech isn’t lawsuits but more speech. Silencing them by force of law will not help at all.
On the post: Appeals Court Says The First Amendment Protects Minnesota Woman's Right To Be Super-Shitty About Nearby Islamic School
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Social consequences. Name them and shame them. Record them to potentially gather evidence of legal wrongdoing; if they have a problem with that, then they’re a hypocrite. That’s the whole thing about the 1A.
Monetary sanctions are also in play, you know. Possibly jail time. But I’m not arguing about the severity or effectiveness of the legal punishment. You said there is no recourse, not that the recourse is insufficient.
I firmly disagree with that assessment. For one thing, where direct harm is provable, there is usually some recourse. More importantly, we prefer to have the consequences be social rather than legal outside of certain bounds. That I agree people should have the legal right to be a douchebag doesn’t mean I think they should be able to be a douchebag without consequences.
Again: legal =/= moral or consequence-free, nor should it.
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, marriage (by which I mean a long-term pairing or grouping of people for the purposes of cohabitation and some combination of child-rearing, reproduction, sexual activities, inheritance, and/or romance) predates the religious practice of marriage. It wasn’t always legally recognized, but it was socially recognized long before it became linked to religion. In fact, countries like Japan recognized marriage irrespective of religion for a very long time. So you really have the whole thing backwards. The idea of marriage was not originally religious in nature; the religious aspects came later. And currently, atheists can get married, so whatever it used to be, marriage isn’t defined by religion anymore.
Additionally, having marriage legally recognized confers several benefits regarding medical decisions, finances, child-rearing, ownership, taxation, inheritance, etc. That’s one of the reasons why having separate “civil unions” wasn’t going to work: the two weren’t legally equal.
If what you’re proposing is to replace the term “marriage” as defined in law with “civil union”, I mean, I guess, but there really would be no point to it, and it’d be a huge pain in the ass for no actual benefit.
On top of that, the religious definitions have differed between and within religions, so…
On the post: Texas Legislature Says You Can't Teach About Racism In Schools, But Social Media Sites Must Host Holocaust Denialism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m okay with having separate showers for them. Or be less dedicated to hiding sexuality. Either is fine.
What happens when a male boy gets a hard-on in a boys’ locker room and discovers he’s really gay/bi/pan/etc.? If it can be handled there, why not in the girls’ locker room?
Also, I’m personally in favor of having locker rooms set up so that no one can see anyone’s privates.
Again, I really think this whole issue could be easily sidestepped with locker rooms set up so no one can see anyone’s privates. But if not, then there should be people who are ready to deal with that in the schools.
How are they going about it that’s a problem? Like I said, I see no fundamental difference between your proposed scenario and with having homosexual or bisexual cisgender people share a locker room with people with the same gender.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Threatens Amazon For Selling Books Containing Misinformation; Perhaps Forgetting The 1st Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
If you can prove intent or something, possibly.
Which was all I was saying.
Agreed.
That’s not how it works. Opinions based on disclosed facts are protected equally for everyone. The penalty is still based on social consequences.
Which is a problem with those people doing the rewarding, but it is also penalized by others. We can’t control everyone.
On the post: PETA Sues NIH And HHS Directors For Blocking Comments With 'PETA' And '#StopAnimalTesting'
Re: Re:
Or Greek. See: ΡΕΤΑ ρετα
Next >>