I think maybe it's bart simpson logic. The cop didn't set the guy on fire, the cop was just swinging his arm and walking toward lisa, if she gets hit it's her own fault for being there covered in gasoline?
"The only thing that matters is whether or not he deserved to be tased."
"Under this line of thought, the force deployment was reasonable"
How so? The line of though claims both that he deserved to be tased because they needed to prevent him from starting the fire and they knew doing it would start the fire. That isn't reasonable it's self contradicting You can't have both, either you didn't know tasing him would start the fire or you tased him for a different reason than preventing the fire being started
Several conservative values I would have said are commendable, but
we have seen every one of them completely and utterly abandoned in the name of it's "us or them". Including pulling your own damn weight, and basic freedoms like choosing who you do business with.
If you don't like twitter or AWS or whatever crap the evil satanic pedophile liberal science believing nerds made for you or how they run their service, put your money where your mouth is and do it better.
The question of whether social media companies harbor an anti-conservative bias can't be answered because it can't currently be distinguished from anti-bullshit bias
The article you linked to actually claims they just lost lost the court battle they were actually fighting in france, but that's old news. Google also caved in australia, which did get mention.
The opposition controls the news, and has no problem fighting dirty. Public opinion is against them; it's a losing battle.
I think it's more like they stood up and said "I'm Spartacus!" and looked around everyone else just muttered under their breath and a few threw tomatoes so they stepped back and said "nevermind, carry on"
They were hoping for support and couldn't weather it alone with the general public already at their throats for other reasons.
who coulda predicted eh? big up front investment for a streaming service? graphic intensive twitch games completely over internet latency for input and hi res graphics? Seemed like a shoe-in
I think a sideloading mandate is a red herring, the issue as I see it isn't with the software but with apple being allowed to lock the tying hardware and software together. It's very similar to a right to repair issue in my mind.
The problem is that apple can abuse their position as a dominant hardware manufacturer to force their software on people and then use the position that they have forced software on people to push them into apple hardware and therefore also force software manufacturers to pay them for "access" to their hardware.
Normally, if you have a whole bunch of people with aging hardware someone could step in to make replacement parts (in this case, the part is the O.S)
Instead, you have a situation where apple can decide they need money, put some subtle performance and other problems (accidentally or otherwise) in their OS update, which they can force everyone to accept so the older phones stop working to varying degrees and "encourage" people to upgrade to new ones.
You have things where people have bought a bunch of third party software and apple can make sure that you can only continue to use it if you continue to buy iphones.
Google does have several separate revenue streams, but they don't work together to remove and lock out competition from entering their shared ecosystem.
It's more like they will need to make sure that they tailor those arbitrator decisions such that they will bleed facebook the right amount to get the most money out of them without forcing their hand. Facebook will certainly leave if they have to.
The bluff part comes in that they aren't actually willing to do it just out of principle for the benefit of humanity or whatever to prevent the risk of this cascading and becoming unsustainable later, but that doesn't mean they won't leave if they actually start losing money
but also after facebook decides they don't like the deal want to leave instead, probably nothing stopping the arbitrator at that point from deciding a big one time fee is appropriate to compensate the news orgs for all the pain and suffering of facebook leaving
They can leave australia, but they weather they still on the hook for the 300 million gazillion that the "arbitrator" decided or not will be a different matter. Australia they will still have to pay. Whether australia can enforce that or not depends on outside factors and might up an international dispute I'd guess?.
There is an imbalance of bargaining power.. Google and Facebook don't need the news corps much and so they have no leverage over them to try to bargain for money with.. I don't think I quite understand the problem with this imbalance of bargaining power thing.. If I want google to pay me in exchange for my photographs there is an imbalance of bargaining power.. They don't care if they have my photographs or not and I do care if they pay me or not.. Isn't that just.. how life works at least for people who don't always get their way?
It's worse; the same pouncing will happen on the right wing outlets too, it's just not for making a mistake or telling a lie in that case, but for not being "loyal" enough. Not backing up fox's lies or vice versa would mean sicking the wolf pack on them.
Facebook doesn't need any excuse to raise their prices on ads, and it wouldn't help them any to have one. The people paying for the ads are not going to consider any excuse they have as part of their decision of where to spend their ad bucks.
On the post: Federal Court Says There's Nothing Wrong With Arresting Someone For Parodying A Police Department Facebook Page
"Because defendants had probable cause"
The law must be ok under the first amendment because we are pretty sure he broke it? Isn't a bit circular?
On the post: Oracle, Which Promised To Protect TikTok User Data From China, Helps Chinese Law Enforcement Snarf Through Lots Of Private Data
The most surprising thing about this article is that Oracle is actually working on something that isn't a lawsuit
On the post: Fifth Circuit Says Tasing A Person Soaked In Gasoline And Setting Them On Fire Isn't An Unreasonable Use Of Force
Re: So in summary
I think maybe it's bart simpson logic. The cop didn't set the guy on fire, the cop was just swinging his arm and walking toward lisa, if she gets hit it's her own fault for being there covered in gasoline?
On the post: Fifth Circuit Says Tasing A Person Soaked In Gasoline And Setting Them On Fire Isn't An Unreasonable Use Of Force
"The only thing that matters is whether or not he deserved to be tased."
"Under this line of thought, the force deployment was reasonable"
How so? The line of though claims both that he deserved to be tased because they needed to prevent him from starting the fire and they knew doing it would start the fire. That isn't reasonable it's self contradicting You can't have both, either you didn't know tasing him would start the fire or you tased him for a different reason than preventing the fire being started
On the post: Yet Another Story Shows How Facebook Bent Over Backwards To Put In Place Different Rules For Conservatives
Re: Re: Re:
Boo hoo. All you get is what the other guy started with. practical is earned.
On the post: Yet Another Story Shows How Facebook Bent Over Backwards To Put In Place Different Rules For Conservatives
Re:
Several conservative values I would have said are commendable, but
we have seen every one of them completely and utterly abandoned in the name of it's "us or them". Including pulling your own damn weight, and basic freedoms like choosing who you do business with.
If you don't like twitter or AWS or whatever crap the evil satanic pedophile liberal science believing nerds made for you or how they run their service, put your money where your mouth is and do it better.
On the post: Yet Another Story Shows How Facebook Bent Over Backwards To Put In Place Different Rules For Conservatives
Re: Evidence
The question of whether social media companies harbor an anti-conservative bias can't be answered because it can't currently be distinguished from anti-bullshit bias
On the post: Yet Another Story Shows How Facebook Bent Over Backwards To Put In Place Different Rules For Conservatives
"I understand that Mark Zuckerberg has staked out an understandable position that he doesn't want to be the arbiter of truth"
Except he is being the arbiter of truth.. He is only changing how he is arbitrating it, not whether he is.
He is still using his power as arbiter to slant discussion just as much, just changing where he slants it to.
On the post: Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating
Re:
The article you linked to actually claims they just lost lost the court battle they were actually fighting in france, but that's old news. Google also caved in australia, which did get mention.
The opposition controls the news, and has no problem fighting dirty. Public opinion is against them; it's a losing battle.
On the post: Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating
Re: Re:
I think it's more like they stood up and said "I'm Spartacus!" and looked around everyone else just muttered under their breath and a few threw tomatoes so they stepped back and said "nevermind, carry on"
They were hoping for support and couldn't weather it alone with the general public already at their throats for other reasons.
On the post: Google Disbands Stadia Game Developers And Signals Potential For More Trouble Ahead
who coulda predicted eh? big up front investment for a streaming service? graphic intensive twitch games completely over internet latency for input and hi res graphics? Seemed like a shoe-in
On the post: Is Mandated Sideloading The Answer To App Store Deplatforming?
Re: the problem with separating the hardware and software
Not saying they should be forcing them separate or anything, just don't allow apple to actively lock out competitors from making replacements.
On the post: Is Mandated Sideloading The Answer To App Store Deplatforming?
I think a sideloading mandate is a red herring, the issue as I see it isn't with the software but with apple being allowed to lock the tying hardware and software together. It's very similar to a right to repair issue in my mind.
The problem is that apple can abuse their position as a dominant hardware manufacturer to force their software on people and then use the position that they have forced software on people to push them into apple hardware and therefore also force software manufacturers to pay them for "access" to their hardware.
Normally, if you have a whole bunch of people with aging hardware someone could step in to make replacement parts (in this case, the part is the O.S)
Instead, you have a situation where apple can decide they need money, put some subtle performance and other problems (accidentally or otherwise) in their OS update, which they can force everyone to accept so the older phones stop working to varying degrees and "encourage" people to upgrade to new ones.
You have things where people have bought a bunch of third party software and apple can make sure that you can only continue to use it if you continue to buy iphones.
Google does have several separate revenue streams, but they don't work together to remove and lock out competition from entering their shared ecosystem.
On the post: Facebook Caves To Australia: Will Restore Links After Government Gives It More Time To Negotiate Paying For News Links
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question about Australian Law
It's more like they will need to make sure that they tailor those arbitrator decisions such that they will bleed facebook the right amount to get the most money out of them without forcing their hand. Facebook will certainly leave if they have to.
The bluff part comes in that they aren't actually willing to do it just out of principle for the benefit of humanity or whatever to prevent the risk of this cascading and becoming unsustainable later, but that doesn't mean they won't leave if they actually start losing money
On the post: Facebook Caves To Australia: Will Restore Links After Government Gives It More Time To Negotiate Paying For News Links
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question about Australian Law
but also after facebook decides they don't like the deal want to leave instead, probably nothing stopping the arbitrator at that point from deciding a big one time fee is appropriate to compensate the news orgs for all the pain and suffering of facebook leaving
On the post: Facebook Caves To Australia: Will Restore Links After Government Gives It More Time To Negotiate Paying For News Links
Re: Re: Question about Australian Law
They can leave australia, but they weather they still on the hook for the 300 million gazillion that the "arbitrator" decided or not will be a different matter. Australia they will still have to pay. Whether australia can enforce that or not depends on outside factors and might up an international dispute I'd guess?.
On the post: Australian News Sites Shocked & Upset To Learn They Don't Need To Rely On Facebook For Traffic!
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately...
There is an imbalance of bargaining power.. Google and Facebook don't need the news corps much and so they have no leverage over them to try to bargain for money with.. I don't think I quite understand the problem with this imbalance of bargaining power thing.. If I want google to pay me in exchange for my photographs there is an imbalance of bargaining power.. They don't care if they have my photographs or not and I do care if they pay me or not.. Isn't that just.. how life works at least for people who don't always get their way?
On the post: Devin Nunes Follows Through And Sues CNN In Laughably Dumb SLAPP Suit
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...
It's worse; the same pouncing will happen on the right wing outlets too, it's just not for making a mistake or telling a lie in that case, but for not being "loyal" enough. Not backing up fox's lies or vice versa would mean sicking the wolf pack on them.
On the post: Australian News Sites Shocked & Upset To Learn They Don't Need To Rely On Facebook For Traffic!
Re: Facebook wins with what Australia did
Facebook doesn't need any excuse to raise their prices on ads, and it wouldn't help them any to have one. The people paying for the ads are not going to consider any excuse they have as part of their decision of where to spend their ad bucks.
On the post: Australian News Sites Shocked & Upset To Learn They Don't Need To Rely On Facebook For Traffic!
Re:
Of course! Newscorp made several facebook pages that are full of news links to help drive traffic to their sites.
Next >>