I know, I agree that the idea is upsetting. Its not fair to the children who have been victimized. They deserve everything society can do to try to make them as close to whole again as possible. And perpetrators must be brought to justice. But there is correlation between lower rates of sexual abuse and availability of child porn. There is validity to the idea of safe space to view this material preventing potential abusers from acting on the impulse by indulging the desire. And by taking away the criminality of consuming this material, social workers, victims advocates, mental health professionals can reach these people (and victims) more easily before they seek out a victim. And there is a disturbing number of adults who admit to watching abusive material, whether out of curiosity or as some sort of thrill. But the same concern about escalating behavior can be said for rape fantasy porn. I don't understand it, and supposedly women are the main or significant consumers, but it's not driving up sexual assaults. I don't really want to draw the comparison, but violent video games and movies don't cause violence or desensitize people.
People are never going to seek mental health treatment for child porn proclivities even if care was totally free and abundantly available because of the stigma and crushing legal consequences. These are separate social issues for now.
The whole issue is really disturbing and upsetting to me. Since becoming a mom I find myself significantly more bothered by news stories about babies and children being hurt or killed- almost always by the parents. And the government separations of children at the border tore me apart; the Yemeni children pictures make me well up with tears. I don't want to see more kids harmed and I think we need to stop repeating failing ideas. Prohibition never works.
You have a point. But do you think any of these people are willing or interested in changing their views? I mean, their holding onto 10 year old debunked lies, something tells me that if Fox casually added liberal, left leaning pundits into the lineup until they equalled about 1/2, getting equal prime time shows, these people would watch 1/2 as much Fox. And frequently these are the people complaining about biased news.
I know the Russians have and continue to sow discord through social media. But I doubt that they actually changed anyone's vote because people are always looking to confirm their bias. I try to shake up my own bias on occasion by reading something ultra conservative, or watching Lou Dobbs after Kennedy but I can't stand more than a few minutes. Even Kennedy is losing me lately. Most news I consume comes from a variety sources, though it probably leans more liberal.
I know this is going to sound horrible, but bear with me. We should stop all the calls for platforms to remove content, even child porn and terrorist propaganda. Child porn is horrible and I don't understand what kind of wiring has been crossed in people's brains that makes them seek out such a terrible and abusive thing. But the taboo and dangerous nature can spark dark curiosity; places where child porn was more available had a correlation with lower rates of sexually abused children. There may be ways to help people who are driven to seek out this content if we lesson the stigma from irredeemable piece of shit deserving of torture to mentally ill person in need of treatment. It's heartbreaking that so many children have been exploited, but the ways we deal with it now aren't preventing new crimes.
And similarly, terrorist propaganda can be used to combat terrorism. People can't keep secrets and the more these groups operate in the open, the more likely we can thwart an attack. We can also intervene in radicalization and combat their bad speech with good.
The more underground we push things, like drugs and prostitution, clearly the more violent and dangerous they become. On the other hand, we can acknowledge the dangerous and ugly parts of humanity, and learn how to avoid or get away from them. We can reach out to victims more easily, which we learned with the stupid SESTA law.
And I'm not saying that anyone who exploits a child or commits terrorism shouldn't be accountable to the law, only that we don't criminalize the consumers. And I certainly don't wish to be exposed to many repugnant things on the internet just to keep in touch with friends and family, nor do I think anyone should have to put up with bullying or harassment. Which is why users need more control over content and privacy.
Bias can also be conveyed by placement, such as front page or buried 7 stories deep of the early morning broadcast.
Can anyone even imagine how utterly boring the world would be if we tried to strip the humanity- as in the bias- from all journalism? We'd be left with bland encyclopedia like charts of facts, and there would be no such thing as photo journalism.
I don't know why people cry about bias in news reporting and journalism in this day and age. Don't think your getting a well rounded perspective, then break your bubble and read or watch stories from different ideological perspectives, even ones you reflexively feel have nothing to offer. It won't hurt to challenge yourself to see things from an opposing viewpoint, weigh the merits of what drives their narrative; doesn't mean you agree, but it may help you build empathy.
I used to be one of those "normal" people. I had the utmost respect for cops, didn't think cops or the system was racist, that only bad people with something to hide would refuse consent to search their car or home. I am a white, middle class female.
But then I witnessed cops being racist to a black man who witnessed a car accident and where the driver ran (leaving the scene). They threatened him for trying to tell them where the driver ran because they were asking me what I saw. I saw the crash, but I didn't see the driver that ran because I was making a uturn so that I could park to block on coming traffic while helping the accident victims, and to please listen to this man. They said they'd get to that nut job shortly; I saw them rolling their eyes, saying yeah,yeah yeah, now back up so paramedics can work (the ambulance hadn't even arrived). Before the cops arrived, the gentleman had helped pull the door open so that the mother could reach her daughter under the dash because the car was smoking. The cops questioned me while I held my sweater against the little boys head wound while he laid on the ground. It was disgusting and shocking. I didn't immediately understand why the cops were so rude to another good Samaritan but nice to me.
And then my prescription medication was stolen, a narcotic that I take for narcolepsy so that I don't fall asleep behind the wheel, among other hazards. The cops decided only addicts or dealers would report a narcotic medicine stolen, good people would just suffer; but they could be persuaded if I agreed to a polygraph. Long story short, I was coerced into recanting my police report and charged with filing a false report. My hair started coming in gray after the interrogation.
Now I know that I can't turn to the police if I am a victim, and cops really are a bunch of racist thugs who only care about arrests for rising in the ranks and opportunities to steal from taxpayers to buy toys not in the budget. Your painting them as some kind if heros is pitifully naive.
Seems to me that there is all this anger and blame being lobbed at platforms- who all seemed to take removing of such abhorrent footage seriously, preferring to err on the side of caution- and no real effort to examine what the hell is wrong with people that they wish to proliferate the footage? I'm not advocating for some aggressive action or thought police. Instead, an effort to engage with groups that viewed or spread the videos, in a peaceful manner, with out attempting to censor them for saying hateful things- let these people be who they are, as vile as it is to the rest of us. Some of these people may be able to be reached and eventually persuaded to more empathetic and sympathetic attitudes towards fellow humans if they are shown kindness, respect, and a willingness to accept them into mainstream communities regardless of their flaws. I'm not stupid, I know a good number of these people have hardened hate into their bones, but not everyone. People who feel outcast from society, angry at the world, find community within hate groups and other outcasts. We keep trying to eradicate these people from every platform, and screeching at platforms for not playing whack-a-mole well enough, instead of giving people the tools to protect themselves from their harassment and relegating them to their own little safe places where we can keep an eye on them much better than if they only exist in the corners of the dark web.
What I don't understand about this is why now, if not under direct pressure from the government? Every one of these companies knew that candid sex talk and erotica were major topics in her repertoire. She's had contracts with some of them for a decade or more. They didn't issue her any warnings that she was in violation of their terms, which she had to have been since day 1.
Were these companies threatened by government lawyers, or did they run some automated content filter that triggered the contract cancellation? Either way, I can't imagine the intention was to deplatform or demonetize an author and activist. Even though SESTA is terrible, there is still such thing as prosecutorial discretion, and going after a business for their association with an activist for women and marginalized people (which is constitutionally protected right of association) is going to be a bad look, even for this administration. And the longer these companies take to restore the association, the greater hit to their reputation is going to take because it looks just as shitty as being compelled by the government. If the government really wants to pursue a suit in this situation, these companies have the money to fight and win, plus ACLU support. Might be the best way to strike down a bad law.
I see Comcast wants broadband only consumers to bring a voice activated remote into their home. Personally, I only like voice activated functions when I'm driving. Otherwise, I have no need for technology to listen to me muttering to my cats (or now my baby) and creating lists of whose got a fluffy butt or whose got a poopy diaper. Even though I never activated the voice function on my remote, I keep it stuffed between pillows just in case.
So this new "streaming" box already works with all content providers, or does it cost more to add certain new ones, the access sold in some sort of package, maybe with activation and deactivation charges when changing the configuration of services? And what about HD or 4K picture quality, will the box offer this right off the bat, or would I need to upgrade the box, or rent multiple boxes to access different picture qualities? And activation/deactivation and box installation will require a technician to visit my home during an 8hour window on a weekday, 6-12weeks from now, which will be added to my bill for my convenience, right? And at least once a day the box will need to completely shut down, and 4 or 5 out of 7 times a week, the technician installed box that works perfectly fine the rest of the time, will show some sort of connection issue and make the 10 minute process take 45 minutes? I can have all the shit I hate about their cable service for a fraction of the price?!?!
I totally picture the murder porn episode of South Park...
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt snowflakes miss point of TRAINING EXERCISE.
No. Nope. Wrong.
This was just a sadistic game, there was nothing positive or useful for teachers to take from this.
First, teachers are more interested in better training for retreating and escape. They want to maximize their, as well as students, chance of survival, not confront a shooter. If teachers wanted to be prepared to confront a shooter, then they would be demanding to be armed (I think competent and confident teachers should not be restricted from concealed carry). Most teachers don't want to be armed. Their training should be centered on keeping calm during an emergency so that they can think clearly and act quickly. They may benefit from some exposure, with hearing protection, to the sound of gunfire because it is so jarring and they need to be able to maintain focus.
Getting shot with a pellet gun hurts, but is no comparison to lead bullets. Pellet guns don't even make any real noise. There is no preparation for being shot with live ammunition. This was a stupid and sadistic act that should be considered assault, especially because cops did it.
So without excusing the prosecution's delight in more junk "science", I can't help but wonder why no, even with drastically insufficient funding that plagues public defense, credible refute of such nonsense has been presented. I mean, it couldn't possibly be that expensive to, say, photograph racks of clothing, or have one person model the same clothing items, in the same size at either multiple retail locations or at the manufacturer. Hell, probably could get any number of manufacturing employees to testify accurately about the conformity of their clothes, particularly fabric buyers. This pathetic display of "science", because I cannot call it that, I must use quotation marks, could be disproven by some moderately diligent middle school kids for their science fair project.
I bet if the defendant was a cop claiming mistaken identity the "science" and the "scientist" would be laughed out of the courtroom never to be seen again....
Re: Re: Send a letter to your congressional critters
Please for a moment consider that you are saying that the NAACP should not have been able to lobby, and their donors should have been disclosed to the public.
I don't like that the oil and gas industry can lobby for themselves, especially since they have so much money to do so. But cutting them off means cutting off any number of companies that I have a positive view of, along with non profits and charitable groups. And some of the biggest lobbying spenders are the unions, particularly the teachers unions.
There is no way to get money out of politics without violating free speech rights of the individuals. Legislators are human beings, and as flawed people there is no way to eradicate corruption. I'm not being a fatalist, I just think there are better ways of combating the problem. And I agree that there needs to be more churn of incumbents, but term limits mean good legislators can't stay, and final terms have zero accountability to voters. Why vote the way constituents want if you can't be reelected, might as well vote the way a future potential employer would like.
I love the idea of ranked choice voting. Neither of the two main parties represents me nor a growing number of other people. But neither party is going down, or even going to cede an inch of room for a third party with out an epic battle. Just like the Telecom industry the Rs and D's have a government enabled monopoly (well duopoly). Shaking this system up is going to take nothing less than a revolution. I don't necessarily agree with AOC on policy, but I respect and admire her and think we need a lot more game changers like her to spark real change.
I must be crazy because I prefer ads for things I'm interested in or shopping for as opposed to weight loss and penis enhancement drugs; and I certainly prefer ad based access over user fees. I can't figure out what private data from Facebook am I supposed to be so upset about being profited from or mishandled. Advertise all they want, what are the corporations going to weave subliminal messages into my news feed that make me want to buy a specific crib because I announced my pregnancy? So what. I'm still going to shop around for months until I find the one I like the most, meets my needs and fits my budget. Frankly, I'm far more bothered by 3 credit bureaus that I can't opt out of or select which can collect my information having zero liability in failing to protect my legal identity information that could lead to financial ruin. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it, you have free choice either way.
Now I do agree with another person who said they like the old Facebook, where my feed was more chronological and less trying to predict what I want to see. And I respect that other people feel the opposite as me regarding their data, but I would like to better understand why.
On average, who is spreading this nonsense? School children? College aged young adults? Ya know, those idiots fresh out of school and the purported victims of Momo (or blue whale, or windowless vans...) Nope, it's full grown ass adults. Seems to me that young people have and use their (still developing) critical thinking skills, all the time in fact. But we adults think that because we have achieved adulthood and do responsible things like hold a job and buy insurance, that we don't have to thoughtfully analyze the veracity of the story about momo, or that newly discovered poisonous spider that killed 5 people, or women being smuggled against their will in trunks of cars with duct tape over their mouths because another fully grown ass adult shared the story. We think these youngin's need to yield to us because damnit we know better!
Take a second and think back... Did you ever see something like a giant insect, or something incredible that the adults simply didn't believe until they (grudgingly) saw it for themselves? They assumed you, a child, didn't know what you were talking about or were lying.
Anyone else see the stories of young people with antivaxer parents who did the research and got vaccinated, or caught the measles and now speak in favor of vaccinations?
There is no lack in critical thinking skills, at least not one that better education can resolve. The problem is that as we get older we assume our experience makes us wiser and that some how translates to an attuned innate ability to detect fact from fiction. We dig in and weaponize our skepticism to make others look foolish instead of engaging new or different ideas. We end up screaming about how obviously it is the internet (or television, radio, comic books, novels, bicycles) and helicopter parenting (or lax parenting, single parents, working mothers) and the garbage schools are teaching that is destroying future generations. It's all bullshit. The kids are alright. They always are. We're the idiots talking about momo while the kids are talking about gun violence and climate change.
Thank you. I consider myself a realist, and while I can wax on about a utopian world near anarchy, I know it's an impossible fantasy. I acknowledge where we as a society stand today and as of today we have a government enabled oligopoly where there is no meaningful competition on a utility service. There is no likelihood of one, let alone many, competitors entering at any scale because aside from investment costs, there are too many local level government regulations to battle legally and Congress is never going to create superceding federal legislation to get rid of all those laws. And as of today, Congress is so ignorant about technology that it is painful to watch them attempt to discuss it at any level. And the agility that this industry needs with respect to the laws and regulations that they are bound to is not conducive to legislative process. As 5G gains significant deployment, as consumers demands shift, be it streaming or connected cars or telecommuting, because we have that crazy brilliant Elon Musk guy always tinkering with new projects, a professional agency, that answers to our legislators and has limited powers makes sense.
I'm a libertarian and I agree that the government usually doesn't perform as well as private industry, and often market interventions only serve to pick winners and losers for political reasons. However, phone and cable providers, who now provide broadband, have never been free market industries. The government took control of phone service pretty much in the beginning. We don't know if phone service would have proliferated as quickly, or even more quickly, if the government didn't intervene because it's never been a free market. Even when Make Bell was broken down into 7 regional private companies, they ended up merging back together to become At&T and Verizon. And cable service was rolled out by private companies, which local governments gave monopoly permissions to do so. Few places allowed competing franchises, and private companies merged to become today's cable giants. Ultimately we have mostly mega corporations, with regional concentration that don't compete in a meaningful way. Now, to deal with the lack of market forces we can break all these mega corporations down through antitrust laws, even into 2 or 3 companies per region. But that's going to chase away investors, and probably would reek havoc on the stock market, and nothing prevents them from merging back into mega corporations just like before. Or, we can introduce some reasonable regulations, like net neutrality, and maintain the FCC regulatory authority. (And personally I think it's better to have a professional agency like the FCC making the rules because Congress doesn't understand technology, takes too long to act, never repeals anything, and won't be able to adjust law to keep up with innovation. The administrative state needs to be brought under tighter control of elected officials, but has useful professional expertise that should guide specifics)
Perhaps as technology changes we can get away from government interventions, but there's just no real way of handling legacy industry power that we have today.
No, that's not the core of libertarianism. Individual freedom means the right to live your life as you see fit so long as it does not infringe on or aggress upon anyone else. This means some people will do things that other people disagree with, like smoking, taking drugs, or soliciting a prostitute.
Lots of people complain about "dark money", because they always associate the desire to remain anonymous with sinister motives. Should the NAACP have to disclose their donor rolls, even when they first formed? How about Planned Parenthood, do you think people would still donate if their very conservative community would find out, or someone with violent intentions could target them? Do you think the police should be able to see who supports BLM, NORML, or the Innocence Project? Wanting to out a big corporate donor isn't worth everyone else's privacy.
Libertarians tend to be against Net Neutrality along with Republican politicians because they don't understand the issue and our default position is against government control. The thing is, the Telecom and cable industries are not bastions of capitalism; it's cronyism top to bottom that's mislabeled as capitalism. Neither industry was ever a free market, and most places have no competing ISP. If consumers can't take their business elsewhere, and it's a necessary service, as in a utility, then it's not anti-freedom to have thoughtful regulation and enforcement mechanism.
Regulations aren't the answer to everything, and often they are just market manipulation to hinder the competition.
Libertarians don't hold any significant political power, so go attack the Democrats and Republicans that are controlled by big Pharma, oil and fossil fuels companies, Wall Street, police unions, and the rich and powerful you accuse us of representing. In fact, take a minute to consider how the Dems and reps do everything they can to keep third parties like us, who advocate for maximum individual liberty that appeals to members of both parties, completely shut out of the electoral process.
I totally appreciate that you wish to criticize the government; I'm a libertarian so I expect the government to fail and make things exponentially worse even when the intentions and goals were good and principled. However, I criticize the realities of these failures. I don't parrot conspiracy theories, or the ramblings of a sociopath, or concoct some crazy list of people to blame that belies my fundamental misunderstanding of how government and law works.
I don't care how old you are, if you went to public school then you were fed propaganda. Our history is filled with flawed individuals and ugly things that we are ashamed of but not so much that we are willing to openly discuss and be criticized for. Your "lessons" in critical thinking were no different than what kids learn today as you were led to conclude what teachers wanted you to. Just because the pendulum has swung the other direction doesn't mean public education has suddenly morphed into an indoctrination machine, it always was.
The news is not peddling false information that doesn't reflect reality. It's called perspective and people gravitate towards the reporting that best reflects their perspectives on the world. A story can be factually accurate and biased at the same time. And CNN predicting that Trump would lose was based on poling that was highly respected and historically accurate. But this election cycle was different. They didn't really have their fingers on the pulse of the voters, nor did Clinton. I thought she was going to win but I never counted him out. People cried when he won because he stoked so much hatred and otherism, because he wasn't just inexperienced, but wilfully and stubbornly ignorant. Because if you read any transcript of his interviews or speeches, his incoherence, misinformation and outright lies are so outstanding that one would think they were the ramblings of a schizophrenic if they didn't know better.
And as for this case, I certainly think there's room for some slack because the kid is a kid, slack that should be afforded to all kids, not just a white Catholic school boy. But I don't understand how any of the additional footage and context makes his shitty little smirk and passive-aggressive path blocking, while being fully aware that several people were filming this uncomfortable scene, into nothing more than a confused and scared boy that didn't know what to do. He saw the Native Americans music and singing as a joke, not worthy of his respect or reverence, so he stood there smirking and obnoxiously blocking where the man was trying to go (but didn't want to stop his song to say excuse me) as his friends filmed him. Certainly the kid is not deserving of violence or threats, but checking his white privilege for his fully public stunt, absolutely. This lawsuit, all the crying over how he is just an innocent child, deserving of a safe space without drumbeating Native Americans and judgement of mature and empathetic society, means he learns it's acceptable to treat marginalized people however he wants.
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
How would one go about"flooding" Google with disinformation and lies about an individual? And then how would one ensure that the intended target would find this disinformation far enough up in the search results, ahead of legitimate results, that they would actually view it. And what would make any of these search results appear to come from valid and reliable sources so that the target believes the stories. And how is Google to blame for the actions of some jerk with too much time on their hands, and not the jerk who is subject to libel/slander laws?
I mean, just go straight to the name calling if you want to troll because you look profoundly stupid trying to create a whole narrative to support your insults.
What? Lots of people who interact with the public use a fake name for business to protect their privacy; I did when I did bill collections because I was acutely aware of how much information could be obtained with inexpensive skip tracing tools. I always followed the law and treated people respectfully, but some misdirected their anger and I wasn't taking any risks as a single female.
And why do some workers have body guards or pimps? Because predators know that prostitutes aren't considered credible to cops and are reluctant to report anything because of illegality of prostitution. Body guards and pimps deter and can intervene in an attack, collect money from clients who think they don't have to pay. Get rid of prohibition and street justice will no longer be a problem because their are legal remedies- which applies to all prohibition.
There is no scourge of John's being attacked on behalf of prostitutes, I don't even know what would possess you to suggest such a foolish thing. Having your clients beaten up or harassed simply makes bad business sense, it takes less effort to do repeat business than recruit new clients.
You are clearly don't know anything about the how or why someone chooses sex work so you lack credibility on your claim that they regret their choices.
Toddlers, in real life, are assholes. I can't imagine that even a few million bucks would make it worth the indignity of the TSA, followed by squeezing into microscopic seats with a stranger's screaming kid who cannot be reasoned with or bribed into sitting down quietly for even a few minutes, let alone hours and hours. A child that won't take no for an answer, who will insist on eating and drinking whatever you are having, and will ask the question"why?" Well past the point you appear to be having a nervous breakdown, will flush your wallet down the toilet when they ask you to come and wipe them even though they screamed bloody murder when you tried to go in with them because they can do it themselves.
Seriously, nobody wants a toddler, because in real life they are assholes.
On the post: UK Now Proposes Ridiculous Plan To Fine Internet Companies For Vaguely Defined 'Harmful Content'
Re: Re: I'm going to advocate for the ugly
I know, I agree that the idea is upsetting. Its not fair to the children who have been victimized. They deserve everything society can do to try to make them as close to whole again as possible. And perpetrators must be brought to justice. But there is correlation between lower rates of sexual abuse and availability of child porn. There is validity to the idea of safe space to view this material preventing potential abusers from acting on the impulse by indulging the desire. And by taking away the criminality of consuming this material, social workers, victims advocates, mental health professionals can reach these people (and victims) more easily before they seek out a victim. And there is a disturbing number of adults who admit to watching abusive material, whether out of curiosity or as some sort of thrill. But the same concern about escalating behavior can be said for rape fantasy porn. I don't understand it, and supposedly women are the main or significant consumers, but it's not driving up sexual assaults. I don't really want to draw the comparison, but violent video games and movies don't cause violence or desensitize people.
People are never going to seek mental health treatment for child porn proclivities even if care was totally free and abundantly available because of the stigma and crushing legal consequences. These are separate social issues for now.
The whole issue is really disturbing and upsetting to me. Since becoming a mom I find myself significantly more bothered by news stories about babies and children being hurt or killed- almost always by the parents. And the government separations of children at the border tore me apart; the Yemeni children pictures make me well up with tears. I don't want to see more kids harmed and I think we need to stop repeating failing ideas. Prohibition never works.
On the post: Legislator Irritated By A Journalist Decides State's Government Should Start Regulating Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have a point. But do you think any of these people are willing or interested in changing their views? I mean, their holding onto 10 year old debunked lies, something tells me that if Fox casually added liberal, left leaning pundits into the lineup until they equalled about 1/2, getting equal prime time shows, these people would watch 1/2 as much Fox. And frequently these are the people complaining about biased news.
I know the Russians have and continue to sow discord through social media. But I doubt that they actually changed anyone's vote because people are always looking to confirm their bias. I try to shake up my own bias on occasion by reading something ultra conservative, or watching Lou Dobbs after Kennedy but I can't stand more than a few minutes. Even Kennedy is losing me lately. Most news I consume comes from a variety sources, though it probably leans more liberal.
On the post: UK Now Proposes Ridiculous Plan To Fine Internet Companies For Vaguely Defined 'Harmful Content'
I'm going to advocate for the ugly
I know this is going to sound horrible, but bear with me. We should stop all the calls for platforms to remove content, even child porn and terrorist propaganda. Child porn is horrible and I don't understand what kind of wiring has been crossed in people's brains that makes them seek out such a terrible and abusive thing. But the taboo and dangerous nature can spark dark curiosity; places where child porn was more available had a correlation with lower rates of sexually abused children. There may be ways to help people who are driven to seek out this content if we lesson the stigma from irredeemable piece of shit deserving of torture to mentally ill person in need of treatment. It's heartbreaking that so many children have been exploited, but the ways we deal with it now aren't preventing new crimes.
And similarly, terrorist propaganda can be used to combat terrorism. People can't keep secrets and the more these groups operate in the open, the more likely we can thwart an attack. We can also intervene in radicalization and combat their bad speech with good.
The more underground we push things, like drugs and prostitution, clearly the more violent and dangerous they become. On the other hand, we can acknowledge the dangerous and ugly parts of humanity, and learn how to avoid or get away from them. We can reach out to victims more easily, which we learned with the stupid SESTA law.
And I'm not saying that anyone who exploits a child or commits terrorism shouldn't be accountable to the law, only that we don't criminalize the consumers. And I certainly don't wish to be exposed to many repugnant things on the internet just to keep in touch with friends and family, nor do I think anyone should have to put up with bullying or harassment. Which is why users need more control over content and privacy.
On the post: Legislator Irritated By A Journalist Decides State's Government Should Start Regulating Journalism
Re: Re:
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Yes, thank you!
Bias can also be conveyed by placement, such as front page or buried 7 stories deep of the early morning broadcast.
Can anyone even imagine how utterly boring the world would be if we tried to strip the humanity- as in the bias- from all journalism? We'd be left with bland encyclopedia like charts of facts, and there would be no such thing as photo journalism.
I don't know why people cry about bias in news reporting and journalism in this day and age. Don't think your getting a well rounded perspective, then break your bubble and read or watch stories from different ideological perspectives, even ones you reflexively feel have nothing to offer. It won't hurt to challenge yourself to see things from an opposing viewpoint, weigh the merits of what drives their narrative; doesn't mean you agree, but it may help you build empathy.
On the post: Former Police Chief Says Conviction Requirement For Forfeitures Makes It Too Hard To Take Cash From People
Re: Re:
I used to be one of those "normal" people. I had the utmost respect for cops, didn't think cops or the system was racist, that only bad people with something to hide would refuse consent to search their car or home. I am a white, middle class female.
But then I witnessed cops being racist to a black man who witnessed a car accident and where the driver ran (leaving the scene). They threatened him for trying to tell them where the driver ran because they were asking me what I saw. I saw the crash, but I didn't see the driver that ran because I was making a uturn so that I could park to block on coming traffic while helping the accident victims, and to please listen to this man. They said they'd get to that nut job shortly; I saw them rolling their eyes, saying yeah,yeah yeah, now back up so paramedics can work (the ambulance hadn't even arrived). Before the cops arrived, the gentleman had helped pull the door open so that the mother could reach her daughter under the dash because the car was smoking. The cops questioned me while I held my sweater against the little boys head wound while he laid on the ground. It was disgusting and shocking. I didn't immediately understand why the cops were so rude to another good Samaritan but nice to me.
And then my prescription medication was stolen, a narcotic that I take for narcolepsy so that I don't fall asleep behind the wheel, among other hazards. The cops decided only addicts or dealers would report a narcotic medicine stolen, good people would just suffer; but they could be persuaded if I agreed to a polygraph. Long story short, I was coerced into recanting my police report and charged with filing a false report. My hair started coming in gray after the interrogation.
Now I know that I can't turn to the police if I am a victim, and cops really are a bunch of racist thugs who only care about arrests for rising in the ranks and opportunities to steal from taxpayers to buy toys not in the budget. Your painting them as some kind if heros is pitifully naive.
On the post: Aussie Senate Rushes Thru Bill That Would Fine Social Media Companies For Not Taking Down 'Abhorrent' Content Fast Enough
Misplaced blame
Seems to me that there is all this anger and blame being lobbed at platforms- who all seemed to take removing of such abhorrent footage seriously, preferring to err on the side of caution- and no real effort to examine what the hell is wrong with people that they wish to proliferate the footage? I'm not advocating for some aggressive action or thought police. Instead, an effort to engage with groups that viewed or spread the videos, in a peaceful manner, with out attempting to censor them for saying hateful things- let these people be who they are, as vile as it is to the rest of us. Some of these people may be able to be reached and eventually persuaded to more empathetic and sympathetic attitudes towards fellow humans if they are shown kindness, respect, and a willingness to accept them into mainstream communities regardless of their flaws. I'm not stupid, I know a good number of these people have hardened hate into their bones, but not everyone. People who feel outcast from society, angry at the world, find community within hate groups and other outcasts. We keep trying to eradicate these people from every platform, and screeching at platforms for not playing whack-a-mole well enough, instead of giving people the tools to protect themselves from their harassment and relegating them to their own little safe places where we can keep an eye on them much better than if they only exist in the corners of the dark web.
On the post: Welcome To The Prude Internet: No More Sex Talk Allowed
What I don't understand about this is why now, if not under direct pressure from the government? Every one of these companies knew that candid sex talk and erotica were major topics in her repertoire. She's had contracts with some of them for a decade or more. They didn't issue her any warnings that she was in violation of their terms, which she had to have been since day 1.
Were these companies threatened by government lawyers, or did they run some automated content filter that triggered the contract cancellation? Either way, I can't imagine the intention was to deplatform or demonetize an author and activist. Even though SESTA is terrible, there is still such thing as prosecutorial discretion, and going after a business for their association with an activist for women and marginalized people (which is constitutionally protected right of association) is going to be a bad look, even for this administration. And the longer these companies take to restore the association, the greater hit to their reputation is going to take because it looks just as shitty as being compelled by the government. If the government really wants to pursue a suit in this situation, these companies have the money to fight and win, plus ACLU support. Might be the best way to strike down a bad law.
On the post: Comcast's New Rented Streaming Box Is A Flimsy Attempt To Remain Relevant
Comcast is flicking its nipples...
I see Comcast wants broadband only consumers to bring a voice activated remote into their home. Personally, I only like voice activated functions when I'm driving. Otherwise, I have no need for technology to listen to me muttering to my cats (or now my baby) and creating lists of whose got a fluffy butt or whose got a poopy diaper. Even though I never activated the voice function on my remote, I keep it stuffed between pillows just in case.
So this new "streaming" box already works with all content providers, or does it cost more to add certain new ones, the access sold in some sort of package, maybe with activation and deactivation charges when changing the configuration of services? And what about HD or 4K picture quality, will the box offer this right off the bat, or would I need to upgrade the box, or rent multiple boxes to access different picture qualities? And activation/deactivation and box installation will require a technician to visit my home during an 8hour window on a weekday, 6-12weeks from now, which will be added to my bill for my convenience, right? And at least once a day the box will need to completely shut down, and 4 or 5 out of 7 times a week, the technician installed box that works perfectly fine the rest of the time, will show some sort of connection issue and make the 10 minute process take 45 minutes? I can have all the shit I hate about their cable service for a fraction of the price?!?!
I totally picture the murder porn episode of South Park...
On the post: Sheriff Decides The Best Way To Prep Teachers For School Shootings Is To Frighten And Injure Them
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt snowflakes miss point of TRAINING EXERCISE.
No. Nope. Wrong.
This was just a sadistic game, there was nothing positive or useful for teachers to take from this.
First, teachers are more interested in better training for retreating and escape. They want to maximize their, as well as students, chance of survival, not confront a shooter. If teachers wanted to be prepared to confront a shooter, then they would be demanding to be armed (I think competent and confident teachers should not be restricted from concealed carry). Most teachers don't want to be armed. Their training should be centered on keeping calm during an emergency so that they can think clearly and act quickly. They may benefit from some exposure, with hearing protection, to the sound of gunfire because it is so jarring and they need to be able to maintain focus.
Getting shot with a pellet gun hurts, but is no comparison to lead bullets. Pellet guns don't even make any real noise. There is no preparation for being shot with live ammunition. This was a stupid and sadistic act that should be considered assault, especially because cops did it.
On the post: FBI's 'Clothing Match' Expert Changed Testimony To Better Serve Prosecutors, Co-Chairs Nat'l Forensic Committee
So without excusing the prosecution's delight in more junk "science", I can't help but wonder why no, even with drastically insufficient funding that plagues public defense, credible refute of such nonsense has been presented. I mean, it couldn't possibly be that expensive to, say, photograph racks of clothing, or have one person model the same clothing items, in the same size at either multiple retail locations or at the manufacturer. Hell, probably could get any number of manufacturing employees to testify accurately about the conformity of their clothes, particularly fabric buyers. This pathetic display of "science", because I cannot call it that, I must use quotation marks, could be disproven by some moderately diligent middle school kids for their science fair project.
I bet if the defendant was a cop claiming mistaken identity the "science" and the "scientist" would be laughed out of the courtroom never to be seen again....
On the post: Hearing On New Net Neutrality Law Once Again Conjures Up A Greatest Hits Of Nonsense
Re: Re: Send a letter to your congressional critters
Please for a moment consider that you are saying that the NAACP should not have been able to lobby, and their donors should have been disclosed to the public.
I don't like that the oil and gas industry can lobby for themselves, especially since they have so much money to do so. But cutting them off means cutting off any number of companies that I have a positive view of, along with non profits and charitable groups. And some of the biggest lobbying spenders are the unions, particularly the teachers unions.
There is no way to get money out of politics without violating free speech rights of the individuals. Legislators are human beings, and as flawed people there is no way to eradicate corruption. I'm not being a fatalist, I just think there are better ways of combating the problem. And I agree that there needs to be more churn of incumbents, but term limits mean good legislators can't stay, and final terms have zero accountability to voters. Why vote the way constituents want if you can't be reelected, might as well vote the way a future potential employer would like.
I love the idea of ranked choice voting. Neither of the two main parties represents me nor a growing number of other people. But neither party is going down, or even going to cede an inch of room for a third party with out an epic battle. Just like the Telecom industry the Rs and D's have a government enabled monopoly (well duopoly). Shaking this system up is going to take nothing less than a revolution. I don't necessarily agree with AOC on policy, but I respect and admire her and think we need a lot more game changers like her to spark real change.
On the post: Do People Want A Better Facebook, Or A Dead Facebook?
Please target my ads
I must be crazy because I prefer ads for things I'm interested in or shopping for as opposed to weight loss and penis enhancement drugs; and I certainly prefer ad based access over user fees. I can't figure out what private data from Facebook am I supposed to be so upset about being profited from or mishandled. Advertise all they want, what are the corporations going to weave subliminal messages into my news feed that make me want to buy a specific crib because I announced my pregnancy? So what. I'm still going to shop around for months until I find the one I like the most, meets my needs and fits my budget. Frankly, I'm far more bothered by 3 credit bureaus that I can't opt out of or select which can collect my information having zero liability in failing to protect my legal identity information that could lead to financial ruin. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it, you have free choice either way.
Now I do agree with another person who said they like the old Facebook, where my feed was more chronological and less trying to predict what I want to see. And I respect that other people feel the opposite as me regarding their data, but I would like to better understand why.
On the post: Momo Hoax Shows America's Susceptibility To Bullshit Goes Well Beyond Social Media
Re: Re: Re: Re: cultivate
On average, who is spreading this nonsense? School children? College aged young adults? Ya know, those idiots fresh out of school and the purported victims of Momo (or blue whale, or windowless vans...) Nope, it's full grown ass adults. Seems to me that young people have and use their (still developing) critical thinking skills, all the time in fact. But we adults think that because we have achieved adulthood and do responsible things like hold a job and buy insurance, that we don't have to thoughtfully analyze the veracity of the story about momo, or that newly discovered poisonous spider that killed 5 people, or women being smuggled against their will in trunks of cars with duct tape over their mouths because another fully grown ass adult shared the story. We think these youngin's need to yield to us because damnit we know better!
Take a second and think back... Did you ever see something like a giant insect, or something incredible that the adults simply didn't believe until they (grudgingly) saw it for themselves? They assumed you, a child, didn't know what you were talking about or were lying.
Anyone else see the stories of young people with antivaxer parents who did the research and got vaccinated, or caught the measles and now speak in favor of vaccinations?
There is no lack in critical thinking skills, at least not one that better education can resolve. The problem is that as we get older we assume our experience makes us wiser and that some how translates to an attuned innate ability to detect fact from fiction. We dig in and weaponize our skepticism to make others look foolish instead of engaging new or different ideas. We end up screaming about how obviously it is the internet (or television, radio, comic books, novels, bicycles) and helicopter parenting (or lax parenting, single parents, working mothers) and the garbage schools are teaching that is destroying future generations. It's all bullshit. The kids are alright. They always are. We're the idiots talking about momo while the kids are talking about gun violence and climate change.
On the post: FCC Uses Cherry-Picked Stats To Justify Giving Consumers A Giant Middle Finger
Re: Re: Re: Re:government failure
Thank you. I consider myself a realist, and while I can wax on about a utopian world near anarchy, I know it's an impossible fantasy. I acknowledge where we as a society stand today and as of today we have a government enabled oligopoly where there is no meaningful competition on a utility service. There is no likelihood of one, let alone many, competitors entering at any scale because aside from investment costs, there are too many local level government regulations to battle legally and Congress is never going to create superceding federal legislation to get rid of all those laws. And as of today, Congress is so ignorant about technology that it is painful to watch them attempt to discuss it at any level. And the agility that this industry needs with respect to the laws and regulations that they are bound to is not conducive to legislative process. As 5G gains significant deployment, as consumers demands shift, be it streaming or connected cars or telecommuting, because we have that crazy brilliant Elon Musk guy always tinkering with new projects, a professional agency, that answers to our legislators and has limited powers makes sense.
On the post: FCC Uses Cherry-Picked Stats To Justify Giving Consumers A Giant Middle Finger
Re: is a form of government failure
I'm a libertarian and I agree that the government usually doesn't perform as well as private industry, and often market interventions only serve to pick winners and losers for political reasons. However, phone and cable providers, who now provide broadband, have never been free market industries. The government took control of phone service pretty much in the beginning. We don't know if phone service would have proliferated as quickly, or even more quickly, if the government didn't intervene because it's never been a free market. Even when Make Bell was broken down into 7 regional private companies, they ended up merging back together to become At&T and Verizon. And cable service was rolled out by private companies, which local governments gave monopoly permissions to do so. Few places allowed competing franchises, and private companies merged to become today's cable giants. Ultimately we have mostly mega corporations, with regional concentration that don't compete in a meaningful way. Now, to deal with the lack of market forces we can break all these mega corporations down through antitrust laws, even into 2 or 3 companies per region. But that's going to chase away investors, and probably would reek havoc on the stock market, and nothing prevents them from merging back into mega corporations just like before. Or, we can introduce some reasonable regulations, like net neutrality, and maintain the FCC regulatory authority. (And personally I think it's better to have a professional agency like the FCC making the rules because Congress doesn't understand technology, takes too long to act, never repeals anything, and won't be able to adjust law to keep up with innovation. The administrative state needs to be brought under tighter control of elected officials, but has useful professional expertise that should guide specifics)
Perhaps as technology changes we can get away from government interventions, but there's just no real way of handling legacy industry power that we have today.
On the post: Investigators, Reporters Close In On The Origins Of Those Fake Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re: Re:
No, that's not the core of libertarianism. Individual freedom means the right to live your life as you see fit so long as it does not infringe on or aggress upon anyone else. This means some people will do things that other people disagree with, like smoking, taking drugs, or soliciting a prostitute. Lots of people complain about "dark money", because they always associate the desire to remain anonymous with sinister motives. Should the NAACP have to disclose their donor rolls, even when they first formed? How about Planned Parenthood, do you think people would still donate if their very conservative community would find out, or someone with violent intentions could target them? Do you think the police should be able to see who supports BLM, NORML, or the Innocence Project? Wanting to out a big corporate donor isn't worth everyone else's privacy. Libertarians tend to be against Net Neutrality along with Republican politicians because they don't understand the issue and our default position is against government control. The thing is, the Telecom and cable industries are not bastions of capitalism; it's cronyism top to bottom that's mislabeled as capitalism. Neither industry was ever a free market, and most places have no competing ISP. If consumers can't take their business elsewhere, and it's a necessary service, as in a utility, then it's not anti-freedom to have thoughtful regulation and enforcement mechanism. Regulations aren't the answer to everything, and often they are just market manipulation to hinder the competition. Libertarians don't hold any significant political power, so go attack the Democrats and Republicans that are controlled by big Pharma, oil and fossil fuels companies, Wall Street, police unions, and the rich and powerful you accuse us of representing. In fact, take a minute to consider how the Dems and reps do everything they can to keep third parties like us, who advocate for maximum individual liberty that appeals to members of both parties, completely shut out of the electoral process.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re: The great thing about this case is ...
I totally appreciate that you wish to criticize the government; I'm a libertarian so I expect the government to fail and make things exponentially worse even when the intentions and goals were good and principled. However, I criticize the realities of these failures. I don't parrot conspiracy theories, or the ramblings of a sociopath, or concoct some crazy list of people to blame that belies my fundamental misunderstanding of how government and law works. I don't care how old you are, if you went to public school then you were fed propaganda. Our history is filled with flawed individuals and ugly things that we are ashamed of but not so much that we are willing to openly discuss and be criticized for. Your "lessons" in critical thinking were no different than what kids learn today as you were led to conclude what teachers wanted you to. Just because the pendulum has swung the other direction doesn't mean public education has suddenly morphed into an indoctrination machine, it always was. The news is not peddling false information that doesn't reflect reality. It's called perspective and people gravitate towards the reporting that best reflects their perspectives on the world. A story can be factually accurate and biased at the same time. And CNN predicting that Trump would lose was based on poling that was highly respected and historically accurate. But this election cycle was different. They didn't really have their fingers on the pulse of the voters, nor did Clinton. I thought she was going to win but I never counted him out. People cried when he won because he stoked so much hatred and otherism, because he wasn't just inexperienced, but wilfully and stubbornly ignorant. Because if you read any transcript of his interviews or speeches, his incoherence, misinformation and outright lies are so outstanding that one would think they were the ramblings of a schizophrenic if they didn't know better. And as for this case, I certainly think there's room for some slack because the kid is a kid, slack that should be afforded to all kids, not just a white Catholic school boy. But I don't understand how any of the additional footage and context makes his shitty little smirk and passive-aggressive path blocking, while being fully aware that several people were filming this uncomfortable scene, into nothing more than a confused and scared boy that didn't know what to do. He saw the Native Americans music and singing as a joke, not worthy of his respect or reverence, so he stood there smirking and obnoxiously blocking where the man was trying to go (but didn't want to stop his song to say excuse me) as his friends filmed him. Certainly the kid is not deserving of violence or threats, but checking his white privilege for his fully public stunt, absolutely. This lawsuit, all the crying over how he is just an innocent child, deserving of a safe space without drumbeating Native Americans and judgement of mature and empathetic society, means he learns it's acceptable to treat marginalized people however he wants.
On the post: Google, Apple Called Out For Hosting Saudi Government App That Allows Men To Track Their Spouses' Movements
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. How would one go about"flooding" Google with disinformation and lies about an individual? And then how would one ensure that the intended target would find this disinformation far enough up in the search results, ahead of legitimate results, that they would actually view it. And what would make any of these search results appear to come from valid and reliable sources so that the target believes the stories. And how is Google to blame for the actions of some jerk with too much time on their hands, and not the jerk who is subject to libel/slander laws? I mean, just go straight to the name calling if you want to troll because you look profoundly stupid trying to create a whole narrative to support your insults.
On the post: Key Supporter Of FOSTA, Cindy McCain, Misidentifies 'Different Ethnicity' Child; Claims Credit For Stopping Sex Trafficking That Wasn't
Re: Re: Re:
What? Lots of people who interact with the public use a fake name for business to protect their privacy; I did when I did bill collections because I was acutely aware of how much information could be obtained with inexpensive skip tracing tools. I always followed the law and treated people respectfully, but some misdirected their anger and I wasn't taking any risks as a single female. And why do some workers have body guards or pimps? Because predators know that prostitutes aren't considered credible to cops and are reluctant to report anything because of illegality of prostitution. Body guards and pimps deter and can intervene in an attack, collect money from clients who think they don't have to pay. Get rid of prohibition and street justice will no longer be a problem because their are legal remedies- which applies to all prohibition. There is no scourge of John's being attacked on behalf of prostitutes, I don't even know what would possess you to suggest such a foolish thing. Having your clients beaten up or harassed simply makes bad business sense, it takes less effort to do repeat business than recruit new clients. You are clearly don't know anything about the how or why someone chooses sex work so you lack credibility on your claim that they regret their choices.
On the post: Key Supporter Of FOSTA, Cindy McCain, Misidentifies 'Different Ethnicity' Child; Claims Credit For Stopping Sex Trafficking That Wasn't
Toddlers in real life
Toddlers, in real life, are assholes. I can't imagine that even a few million bucks would make it worth the indignity of the TSA, followed by squeezing into microscopic seats with a stranger's screaming kid who cannot be reasoned with or bribed into sitting down quietly for even a few minutes, let alone hours and hours. A child that won't take no for an answer, who will insist on eating and drinking whatever you are having, and will ask the question"why?" Well past the point you appear to be having a nervous breakdown, will flush your wallet down the toilet when they ask you to come and wipe them even though they screamed bloody murder when you tried to go in with them because they can do it themselves. Seriously, nobody wants a toddler, because in real life they are assholes.
Next >>