There's a distinct problem with that. It is that China is inexorably tying your credit rating and your political rating together. You may be happy to sacrifice a good government rating, but then you find that your home loan gets declined, you aren't able to buy a car, and you get let go from your job because your score is too low and they don't want you making them look bad.
Comcast should charge the companies who have product placement in tv shows a fee. After all, they are using Comcast's network to deliver those ads, it's only fair that they pitch in!
I've been wondering if it makes sense to disconnect my gaming computer from the internet. That's the only reason to have Windows, as far as I'm concerned.
Why does France not make it illegal to bypass the filter? Why do they not make it illegal to host the information? Why is only Google the one who has to follow this (ridiculous) rule?
Organizations like Patrolemen's Benevolent Association which exists to always back up police officers are never going to come out against police officers. So why are they considered news?
I would only report on them (if I were a reporter) if they ever had a point that was not "all police do good, and never do bad"
The point to my post was that you did have to be careful, but that it still had to be done. Speech absolutely can be a powerful and effective weapon of war.
>Even if you're right, is killing people over tweeting about ISIS likely to make the situation better?
That's over my paygrade. Ordinarily I might say it'd make them a martyr, but ISIS is populated by 100% martyrs, so I feel like that has watered it down a bit.
>there's no official "war" here. Just the US randomly killing people we don't like. Declare war and perhaps it's a different story. But we have not.
Really? That's what would make it ok to you? An official declaration? To me, the important criteria is that ISIS is on a murderous raping rampage specifically targeting civilians and we have the power to stop them.
>Either way, specifically targeting people for their speech, rather than their actions... you don't think that's problematic, even in war time?
I wouldn't use the world 'problematic'. I would simply say it requires caution. A person saying they think the enemy has valid points is not a legitimate target due to their speech. A person on a cell phone directing mortar strikes is, even though all he's doing is speaking. Remember, military officers rarely use their weapons, they're almost exclusively in the 'speech' camp.
Again, I think speech is important to protect, but "all he was doing was speaking" is not a get out of jail free card.
In a war, is an army recruiter a legitimate target?
ISIS is fighting a war. The fact that they do not have a country to speak of, or wear uniforms worth noting does not change this.
If the tweeter in question was taking orders from ISIS to recruit people and spread propaganda, then he's a member of ISIS just as if he *were* wearing a uniform.
If he's just some idiot who thinks ISIS is cool because they get to rape women all day and murder infidels at night, then he's just a psychotic idiot.
It's not a particularly comforting distinction, but the line has to be drawn and drawn clearly.
That's one thing we don't talk about when we talk about guns
Owning one means the police are much more likely to kill you when they conduct their standard issue no-knock raids of your home for playing a video game against a petulant teenager.
On the post: Inglewood Told To Pay $118k Of Taxpayer Money For Abusing Copyright Law To Silence A Critic
On the post: China Looks To Quell Dissent With 'Citizen Scores,' A Number That Tracks Purchases, Opinions And Social Circles
Using a low score as a badge of honor
It's really really creepy.
On the post: Argentina Plans To Increase Copyright In Photos From 20 Years To Life Plus 70 Years, Devastating Wikipedia
On the post: ISP Announces It's Blocking All Facebook And Google Ads Until Companies Pay A Troll Toll
Let's carry this further
On the post: Tennessee Voraciously Defends Its Right To Let AT&T Write Awful State Broadband Laws
Pshaw
On the post: Microsoft 'Addresses' Windows 10 Privacy Concerns By Simply Not Mentioning Most Of Them
Re:
On the post: Canada Wants To Cut Price Of 'World's Most Expensive Drug'; US Manufacturer Sues To Stop It
Why do you hate capitalism?
On the post: The Wall Street Journal Doubles Down On Dumb: Falsely Claims Net Neutrality ('Obamanet') Has Crushed Broadband Investment
Color me unsurprised
On the post: French Regulating Body Says Google Must Honor Right To Be Forgotten Across All Of Its Domains
Some issues I have with this
Methinks this stinks.
On the post: NYPD Union Prez Patrick Lynch: Only Police Are Qualified To Judge The Actions Of Police
How are they considered news?
I would only report on them (if I were a reporter) if they ever had a point that was not "all police do good, and never do bad"
On the post: Police Drop Case Against Kid Who Made Clock, While Mayor Worries About The Impact... On The Police
Roll it back to zero
On the post: Larry Lessig Tells New Zealand Court That DOJ's Case Against Kim Dotcom Is A Sham
Who are the trolls here?
Is the RIAA doing the Putin thing and hiring a troll army?
On the post: US Counterterrorism Official Says US Is 'The Angel Of Death' And Should Be Target Killing ISIS Tweeters
Re: Re: Q.
On the post: US Counterterrorism Official Says US Is 'The Angel Of Death' And Should Be Target Killing ISIS Tweeters
Re: Re: Q.
That's over my paygrade. Ordinarily I might say it'd make them a martyr, but ISIS is populated by 100% martyrs, so I feel like that has watered it down a bit.
On the post: US Counterterrorism Official Says US Is 'The Angel Of Death' And Should Be Target Killing ISIS Tweeters
Re: Re: Q.
Really? That's what would make it ok to you? An official declaration? To me, the important criteria is that ISIS is on a murderous raping rampage specifically targeting civilians and we have the power to stop them.
>Either way, specifically targeting people for their speech, rather than their actions... you don't think that's problematic, even in war time?
I wouldn't use the world 'problematic'. I would simply say it requires caution. A person saying they think the enemy has valid points is not a legitimate target due to their speech. A person on a cell phone directing mortar strikes is, even though all he's doing is speaking. Remember, military officers rarely use their weapons, they're almost exclusively in the 'speech' camp.
Again, I think speech is important to protect, but "all he was doing was speaking" is not a get out of jail free card.
On the post: US Counterterrorism Official Says US Is 'The Angel Of Death' And Should Be Target Killing ISIS Tweeters
Q.
ISIS is fighting a war. The fact that they do not have a country to speak of, or wear uniforms worth noting does not change this.
If the tweeter in question was taking orders from ISIS to recruit people and spread propaganda, then he's a member of ISIS just as if he *were* wearing a uniform.
If he's just some idiot who thinks ISIS is cool because they get to rape women all day and murder infidels at night, then he's just a psychotic idiot.
It's not a particularly comforting distinction, but the line has to be drawn and drawn clearly.
On the post: City Of Boston Left License Plate Data Unprotected And Unencrypted
On the post: EPA Sides With GM In Telling Copyright Office That Copyright Should Stop You From Modifying Your Car Software
How is this related to copyright?
On the post: Utterly Incoherent Wall Street Journal Missive Blames Netflix For, Well, Everything
What the hell?
On the post: Confidential Informants: Inherently Trustworthy Until They're Not
That's one thing we don't talk about when we talk about guns
Next >>