There are some people in Congress who have been trying to pass real reform for years, but it's tough to gain traction when you've got people like Klobuchar in the Senate, let alone Cotton.
Jennifer, why does the word "sideloading" not appear anywhere in your article?
Because that's what you're talking about.
You repeatedly make dark intimations about Apple -- and you're talking about Apple and only Apple, because Android already allows sideloading -- being prevented from controlling what data various third-party businesses have access to. But at no point do you acknowledge that what you're actually talking about is allowing users to decide what software they want to install on their own phones. Oh, the horror.
This is some Orwellian "freedom is slavery" nonsense.
I think there's some legitimate debate to be had about the benefits and drawbacks of restricting a device to run only pre-approved apps versus giving users control to install arbitrary software as they see fit. But it's very hard for me to assume good faith when you go to such lengths to intimate that sideloading is spooky and dangerous while avoiding even calling it by its name. It's not Voldemort. It's a thing we didn't used to need a name for at all because it was just how computers were supposed to work.
like the GOP's claim that Democrats are going to rush Sohn's appointment
Republicans don't care about hypocrisy, but for everybody else, I'd just like to remind you that the last Republican nominee's only qualification for the job was that he'd kissed Trump's ass, and Senate Republicans rammed his nomination through on a party-line vote during the lame-duck session, entirely for the purpose of preventing Democrats from having a majority on the FCC, even though Biden had won the election.
Re: Re: Re: Why should triggering a panic be legal?
And even if it were, it would still be a meaningless observation in most contexts.
If someone were to use an example of something that definitely is illegal -- say, "fraud is illegal" -- that's not actually any better, because it does nothing to establish that the speech you're talking about is an example of fraud.
I'd suggest that most people, when using the expression that "one can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre", are not actually talking about American case law or the minutia of American legal history, but appealing to an argument that malicious or reckless speech can be dangerous and might merit legal consequences
But that's not an argument.
"Some speech is illegal" is a true but meaningless observation. It does absolutely nothing to argue that the speech you're currently talking about is illegal.
There's not a lot of US caselaw upholding the GPL and derivative licenses; most claims don't go to court, and of the ones that have, most were eventually settled, or decided on grounds besides the merits of the GPL itself.
But courts have historically upheld software licenses in general.
On the post: Klobuchar, Cotton Competition Bill Latest To Pretend 'Big Tech' Is The Only Industry With Problems
Re: Intentional...
Not these ones, anyway.
There are some people in Congress who have been trying to pass real reform for years, but it's tough to gain traction when you've got people like Klobuchar in the Senate, let alone Cotton.
On the post: Josh Hawley: The War On Men (?) Is Driving Them To Porn And Video Games (Things Many Men Like?)
Re: 'Of course the rules are different for me, I'm BETTER than t
No, they know exactly what they're doing, and they're doing it on purpose, to trigger the libs.
These are the people chanting "my body, my choice" to protest vaccines. You don't think they know what they're doing?
On the post: Josh Hawley: The War On Men (?) Is Driving Them To Porn And Video Games (Things Many Men Like?)
Re: 'All men not on my side that is.'
They know they're hypocrites.
They don't care.
On the post: Data Privacy Is The Price Of The Latest Antitrust Proposals
Jennifer, why does the word "sideloading" not appear anywhere in your article?
Because that's what you're talking about.
You repeatedly make dark intimations about Apple -- and you're talking about Apple and only Apple, because Android already allows sideloading -- being prevented from controlling what data various third-party businesses have access to. But at no point do you acknowledge that what you're actually talking about is allowing users to decide what software they want to install on their own phones. Oh, the horror.
This is some Orwellian "freedom is slavery" nonsense.
I think there's some legitimate debate to be had about the benefits and drawbacks of restricting a device to run only pre-approved apps versus giving users control to install arbitrary software as they see fit. But it's very hard for me to assume good faith when you go to such lengths to intimate that sideloading is spooky and dangerous while avoiding even calling it by its name. It's not Voldemort. It's a thing we didn't used to need a name for at all because it was just how computers were supposed to work.
On the post: Internet Archive Would Like To Know What The Association Of American Publishers Is Hiding
Re:
I'd probably amend that slightly and say that it's suspicious when a plaintiff wants to prevent discovery.
A defendant may have a very good reason to try to block discovery. See Devin Nunes's various vexatious suits trying to unmask anonymous critics.
On the post: Big Telecom Is Mad Because New FCC Appointment Gigi Sohn Actually Defends Broadband Consumers
Republicans don't care about hypocrisy, but for everybody else, I'd just like to remind you that the last Republican nominee's only qualification for the job was that he'd kissed Trump's ass, and Senate Republicans rammed his nomination through on a party-line vote during the lame-duck session, entirely for the purpose of preventing Democrats from having a majority on the FCC, even though Biden had won the election.
On the post: Nintendo's YouTube Video For Its Switch Online Upgrade Is Its Most Hated Video Ever
I'm not sure people being angry in YouTube comments is as newsworthy as you think it is, Tim.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: One thing confuses me about Nintendo, though.
Because much as Nintendo blusters about emulators being illegal, their lawyers know they aren't.
On the post: The Internet Is Not Facebook; Regulating It As If It Were Will Fuck Things Up
Re:
What are you talking about? Congress has been putting unconstitutional pressure on cable providers to stop carrying Fox News since February.
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should triggering a panic be legal?
Which is...?
On the post: It's Ridiculous The 'Developing World' Wasn't Given Access To The Facebook Files
Re:
And?
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Re: Laugh Out Loud Out Loud
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Re: Re: Re: Why should triggering a panic be legal?
And even if it were, it would still be a meaningless observation in most contexts.
If someone were to use an example of something that definitely is illegal -- say, "fraud is illegal" -- that's not actually any better, because it does nothing to establish that the speech you're talking about is an example of fraud.
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Re: Why should triggering a panic be legal?
Boy, it's a good thing we have you here to explain why the entire history of First Amendment jurisprudence is wrong.
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Re: This argument tends to remind me
But that's not an argument.
"Some speech is illegal" is a true but meaningless observation. It does absolutely nothing to argue that the speech you're currently talking about is illegal.
See Ken White's How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media's Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies, tropes two and three.
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
"as a rule prescribing speech" -- I think that should be proscribing.
On the post: Judge Says Devin Nunes' Family Has To Tell The Judge Who Is Funding Their Lawsuit Against Esquire & Ryan Lizza
Re:
...yes, if it weren't for Devin Nunes, the GOP would have an absolute dearth of clowns.
On the post: Judge Dumps Felony Manslaughter Charges Brought Against An Arrestee After A Deputy Ran Over Another Deputy
"Now look what you made me do" is some abuser shit.
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: trump given 30 days ...
There's not a lot of US caselaw upholding the GPL and derivative licenses; most claims don't go to court, and of the ones that have, most were eventually settled, or decided on grounds besides the merits of the GPL itself.
But courts have historically upheld software licenses in general.
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: What will happen in 30 days?
The fuck does Congress have to do with it?
Next >>