forums, search engines and social media sites are all selling things just as much as anyone who directly accepts payments does. The idea that if someone is selling something they shouldn't get this protection is ridiculous.
The only point of the protection here is to force people to hold those who are actually responsible for actions or speech accountable and not some other party that didn't do anything wrong. The fact that they were involved in the transaction doesn't make them party to the illegal acts.
The fact that the information is part of a public record doesn't mean you can get it without an information request. That's not how public records work.
You gave that information to your government official. If you expected it to remain private you were mistaken and no the government is not obligated to follow your false expectation. They never told you it would be kept private so you had no business expecting it to be.
Comparing a private forum that intentionally hides your personal details with the public government that does not is clearly comparing apples and oranges.
I'm really lost as to why any of this was even necessary. I helped work on the services that automatically provide emergency services with your devices exact location when you call them here in the US. Is this only an issue in other countries?
Even if there were some privacy concern you could just ask the person permission to request their location from their provider and record the conversation. There should never be a need for the caller to have to know how to look this up in any form.
Re: Since don't know is "fan" far more likely prior programmer.
Why don't you here at Techdirt just admit that piracy is theft?
Because you can't point to anything that was stolen without trying to steal things that were never yours to begin with. The only genuine thieves are those pushing this obvious lie.
Nobody is saying booting the assholes off Twitter, YouTube, etc. will magically cure hatred. But it prevents that hatred from being spread on widely-used platforms.
People saying hateful things is far from just someone advocating physical violence.
Facebook is not your house. Nothing I said had anything to do with pretending they should be forced to allow such speech. Only that it's stupid for people to try to get Facebook/etc. to take such speech down.
And I would rather avoid silencing anyone than punish people that say things I don't like out of some perverse dedication to "stop hate speech".
Having to deal with other people saying things you hate is not new. We may need to improve the tools we can provide to individuals to filter what they personally don't want to see but stopping someone from being able to speak at all on whatever x platform you choose is actively making the problem worse.
having oodles of cash and a highly paid lawyer to hand
I'm sorry, where did you see evidence that either of these things were present? I don't see anything in the article that even hints at this. All it says is that the Deputy Solicitor had the stuff tested quickly after some lawyer for Werts talked to him.
In fact the lawyer seems to have just been a free one provided by the state considering his statements after things were done. Why would you assume money was a factor in this case?
We certainly do need more ability to force those who bring ridiculous charges to court to pay, but just making the loser always pay is a terrible idea and extremely unfair and unjust.
This needs to only happen when whatever the one bringing the charges is saying or trying to do is obviously wrong. But proving something is obvious is a very difficult thing to do.
Again not saying we don't need improvement in this area. Only that what feels right to the victim isn't actually ok.
This is by definition sexual. As would any heterosexual couple talking about being heterosexual be by definition sexual as well.
This doesn't mean it makes sense for their particular content to be marked that way or not. But you can't call someone talking about who they like to have sex with not "remotely sexual". It doesn't have to be talking about the act of sex itself to reach the point of being sexual in nature.
You have some point but only because the language used isn't quite as strong as the user seems to actually mean.
Yes, marriage does relate to sex. But then that's not the real problem with comparing that with LGBT.
Those terms don't just relate to sex. They literally only refer to sex. They are only referring to the type of person this person likes to have sex with. There is no wider meaning to them at all.
Marriage has many other things it refers and relates to beyond the sexual implications it does bring.
The OP also never said anything about those people not being allowed out in public. How on earth did you make the jump from marking content as possibly not safe for kids viewing and locking people up in their homes?
I think the problem is that you're assuming the format is relevant. It isn't.
SSN's are easily and often represented without those dashes. Phone numbers are also represented in many different formats. So the only way an SSN could be declared as obviously so is if you decided that any 9 digit number must be an SSN. This is clearly false.
No because they aren't trying to charge you for those (non)violations. They're just trying to use them to get the charges for new violations made much more serious as if you were a multiple offender.
You're only referring to one case where laws were being hidden under the guise of Copyright. There is also the case where private companies technical standards were being made law wholesale and then also blocked from anyone viewing them because of Copyright.
There isn't a single line anywhere in this post that even hinted at arguing that speech doesn't have consequences. So I wonder what you read before you jumped tabs that you're actually trying to respond to?
I admire your willingness to push forward against these terrible takes on copyright law. Unfortunately even if this doesn't stop you personally, it will end up stopping some and end up with some others in prison for it.
Even if it could prevent any number of deaths, pretending that the equation is that simple or that there are no other effects worth being concerned about is not being honest with those who disagree with you.
There are many ways to prevent bad things from happening. The problem is that doing so comes with a very real cost in personal liberty. This is not a zero-sum game and preventing deaths is not more important than anything else. There are some things more valuable even then that.
I'm glad to see you admit that it's a silly idea. Now maybe we can talk about the problem of people wanting to kill other people rather than pretend getting rid of the tools they happen to be using right now ever accomplishes anything?
He literally just showed proof that it DOESN'T prevent ANY deaths at all, and you still prop up the excuse that it will? How can we make any progress when you refuse to even care about evidence contrary to what you want?
On the post: Former Hotel Exec Gets Elected To Congress, Decides First Order Of Business Is To Destroy Airbnb
Re: I can't say I wholly disagree with the idea
forums, search engines and social media sites are all selling things just as much as anyone who directly accepts payments does. The idea that if someone is selling something they shouldn't get this protection is ridiculous.
The only point of the protection here is to force people to hold those who are actually responsible for actions or speech accountable and not some other party that didn't do anything wrong. The fact that they were involved in the transaction doesn't make them party to the illegal acts.
On the post: Missouri Attorney General Claims The First Amendment Allows Him To Withhold Public Records
Re: Re:
The fact that the information is part of a public record doesn't mean you can get it without an information request. That's not how public records work.
You gave that information to your government official. If you expected it to remain private you were mistaken and no the government is not obligated to follow your false expectation. They never told you it would be kept private so you had no business expecting it to be.
Comparing a private forum that intentionally hides your personal details with the public government that does not is clearly comparing apples and oranges.
On the post: What3words Is A Clever Way Of Communicating Position Very Simply, But Do We Really Want To Create A Monopoly For Location Look-ups?
But the user doesn't need to do any of this...
I'm really lost as to why any of this was even necessary. I helped work on the services that automatically provide emergency services with your devices exact location when you call them here in the US. Is this only an issue in other countries?
Even if there were some privacy concern you could just ask the person permission to request their location from their provider and record the conversation. There should never be a need for the caller to have to know how to look this up in any form.
On the post: Embrace Fans: How One Mystery Modder Has Kept System Shock 2 Playable
Re: Since don't know is "fan" far more likely prior programmer.
Why don't you here at Techdirt just admit that piracy is theft?
Because you can't point to anything that was stolen without trying to steal things that were never yours to begin with. The only genuine thieves are those pushing this obvious lie.
On the post: Pushing For Facebook, YouTube And Twitter To Ban Hate Speech Won't Stop It From Migrating Elsewhere
Re:
Now you're just being disingenuous.
On the post: Pushing For Facebook, YouTube And Twitter To Ban Hate Speech Won't Stop It From Migrating Elsewhere
Re: Re: Re:
No one is suggesting doing that.
That is exactly what is being suggested.
Nobody is saying booting the assholes off Twitter, YouTube, etc. will magically cure hatred. But it prevents that hatred from being spread on widely-used platforms.
People saying hateful things is far from just someone advocating physical violence.
On the post: Pushing For Facebook, YouTube And Twitter To Ban Hate Speech Won't Stop It From Migrating Elsewhere
Re: Re: Re:
Facebook is not your house. Nothing I said had anything to do with pretending they should be forced to allow such speech. Only that it's stupid for people to try to get Facebook/etc. to take such speech down.
On the post: Pushing For Facebook, YouTube And Twitter To Ban Hate Speech Won't Stop It From Migrating Elsewhere
Re:
And I would rather avoid silencing anyone than punish people that say things I don't like out of some perverse dedication to "stop hate speech".
Having to deal with other people saying things you hate is not new. We may need to improve the tools we can provide to individuals to filter what they personally don't want to see but stopping someone from being able to speak at all on whatever x platform you choose is actively making the problem worse.
On the post: Prosecutor Tosses Charges Against Driver After Field Drug Test Claims Bird Poop On A Car's Hood Is Cocaine
Re: probable cause
having oodles of cash and a highly paid lawyer to hand
I'm sorry, where did you see evidence that either of these things were present? I don't see anything in the article that even hints at this. All it says is that the Deputy Solicitor had the stuff tested quickly after some lawyer for Werts talked to him.
In fact the lawyer seems to have just been a free one provided by the state considering his statements after things were done. Why would you assume money was a factor in this case?
On the post: Prosecutor Tosses Charges Against Driver After Field Drug Test Claims Bird Poop On A Car's Hood Is Cocaine
Re:
We certainly do need more ability to force those who bring ridiculous charges to court to pay, but just making the loser always pay is a terrible idea and extremely unfair and unjust.
This needs to only happen when whatever the one bringing the charges is saying or trying to do is obviously wrong. But proving something is obvious is a very difficult thing to do.
Again not saying we don't need improvement in this area. Only that what feels right to the victim isn't actually ok.
On the post: Lawyers Who Sued YouTube For Anti-Conservative Bias Are Suing YouTube Again... For Anti-LGBTQ Bias
Re:
discussing their being LGBT
This is by definition sexual. As would any heterosexual couple talking about being heterosexual be by definition sexual as well.
This doesn't mean it makes sense for their particular content to be marked that way or not. But you can't call someone talking about who they like to have sex with not "remotely sexual". It doesn't have to be talking about the act of sex itself to reach the point of being sexual in nature.
On the post: Lawyers Who Sued YouTube For Anti-Conservative Bias Are Suing YouTube Again... For Anti-LGBTQ Bias
Re: Re: Re:
You have some point but only because the language used isn't quite as strong as the user seems to actually mean.
Yes, marriage does relate to sex. But then that's not the real problem with comparing that with LGBT.
Those terms don't just relate to sex. They literally only refer to sex. They are only referring to the type of person this person likes to have sex with. There is no wider meaning to them at all.
Marriage has many other things it refers and relates to beyond the sexual implications it does bring.
The OP also never said anything about those people not being allowed out in public. How on earth did you make the jump from marking content as possibly not safe for kids viewing and locking people up in their homes?
On the post: Class Action Lawsuit Hopes To Hold GitHub Responsible For Hosting Data From Capital One Breach
Re: Re: Re:
I think the problem is that you're assuming the format is relevant. It isn't.
SSN's are easily and often represented without those dashes. Phone numbers are also represented in many different formats. So the only way an SSN could be declared as obviously so is if you decided that any 9 digit number must be an SSN. This is clearly false.
On the post: NYPD, Prosecutors Illegally Using Expunged Criminal Records To Perform Investigations, Ask For Longer Sentences
Re:
No because they aren't trying to charge you for those (non)violations. They're just trying to use them to get the charges for new violations made much more serious as if you were a multiple offender.
On the post: NYPD, Prosecutors Illegally Using Expunged Criminal Records To Perform Investigations, Ask For Longer Sentences
Re: Re:
You're only referring to one case where laws were being hidden under the guise of Copyright. There is also the case where private companies technical standards were being made law wholesale and then also blocked from anyone viewing them because of Copyright.
On the post: Gizmodo: Why Can't YouTube Do 'Good' Content Moderation? Answer: Because It's Fucking Impossible
Re: This is a bad post
There isn't a single line anywhere in this post that even hinted at arguing that speech doesn't have consequences. So I wonder what you read before you jumped tabs that you're actually trying to respond to?
On the post: European Court Of Justice Rules On Three Big Copyright Cases
Re:
I admire your willingness to push forward against these terrible takes on copyright law. Unfortunately even if this doesn't stop you personally, it will end up stopping some and end up with some others in prison for it.
On the post: Why Is Our First Reaction To Mass Shootings To Talk About Censorship?
Re:
Even if it could prevent any number of deaths, pretending that the equation is that simple or that there are no other effects worth being concerned about is not being honest with those who disagree with you.
There are many ways to prevent bad things from happening. The problem is that doing so comes with a very real cost in personal liberty. This is not a zero-sum game and preventing deaths is not more important than anything else. There are some things more valuable even then that.
On the post: Why Is Our First Reaction To Mass Shootings To Talk About Censorship?
Re: Anything but guns and hate
I'm glad to see you admit that it's a silly idea. Now maybe we can talk about the problem of people wanting to kill other people rather than pretend getting rid of the tools they happen to be using right now ever accomplishes anything?
On the post: Why Is Our First Reaction To Mass Shootings To Talk About Censorship?
Re:
He literally just showed proof that it DOESN'T prevent ANY deaths at all, and you still prop up the excuse that it will? How can we make any progress when you refuse to even care about evidence contrary to what you want?
Next >>