> "Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest."
After all the people pointing out your apparent support for ISIS and KKK viewpoints, surely by now you've realised the glaring flaw in your theory.
No, the theory is sound. You are simply misunderstanding his use of the term ``strongest''. His argument is indeed of the strongest, much as turkey litter is of the strongest and should only be applied far from the house lest its strength overwhelm.
Re: Re: [entry onto or remaining on virtual premises]
Because it always concerns private entities setting the rules under which they allow strangers to trespass in their house
Not quite. The ``strangers'', a/k/a ``users'', are actually business invitees, intended to be there for the advantage of the business owner. The business owner expected to exercise a bit more care toward his invitees. For instance, a bar owner ought to eject drunks before they become beligerant and injure other patrons. A restaurant ought to eject smokers before they stink up the place and irritate the allergies of the others in there.
In the case of a brick-and-mortar business on real property, the owner invites customers in order to have his business prosper. But if someone becomes a pain in the butt, causing other customers to leave, the business owner withdraws the invitation and boots the undesirable out. The business invitee becomes a trespasser. Few businesses have rules on the wall setting forth the conditions under which undesirables will be booted.
In the case of a virtual business on the internet, evidently Gov DeSantis and others in the crazy crowd wish for it to be different. They would bar business owners from ejecting undesirables, or at least seriously limit the ability to do so.
I am of the view that they ought to offer a convincing explanation for why these businesses ought to be treated differently, stripped of their rights to revoke the business invitations and eject trespassers. In the physical world, the ability to exclude is an essential stick in the bundle of rights that is property; I have seen no compelling argument as to why the virtual world ought to be different in this respect.
Claiming you're not being offensive when people are offended is, all by itself, extremely offensive
Sometimes it is not even real actual people who are offended. Twitter had some success in the county seat of Shelby (TN) with their automatic detection and blocking.
The gun was less than 10 feet from where Simmons was handcuffed in the yard after being shot
It actually makes more sense this way. Why would cops plant the throwdown far away, which would require additional walking about, when they could throw it down right by where the arrest took place?
It is still problematic that they found no fingerprints on the gun, and no gunshot residue on the arrestee, though that may be explained by the fact that the charges were entirely bogus and the police story was unreliable.
just how do they expect to get away with using B&J's exact same formula
Should be no problem. Even if the recipe is copyrighted, they are not printing and selling copies. And the trademark issue has been discussed separately. A trade secret problem seems unlikely, because the people who know specifics are probably located stateside and in any event are not producing product in the territories.
If they can find the same ingredients, they can mix them how they will. Ingredients may be a problem, because cattle, chickens, sugar cane, and vanilla extract may not be commonly grown in the area, and standards of purity may differ, but they can certainly imitate the original B&J product to the best of their abilities.
They'll give [trump] their adulation and kiss his ring forever. But in the end they'll vote for anyone who won't try to make them go back into that musty closet.
Right now, that next looks like Ron DeSantis. As gov of Florida, his most recent highest priority was getting HB1 through the legislature. That piece of work, inspired by the protests following the Floyd killing, essentially criminalizes protests which the police dislike. Tthe expectation is that the police will dislike protests by darker-complected folks, many of whom were included in the Floyd protests. There was little effort to put lipstick on the pig that was the impetus for HB1.
Not to worry if you are adequately white and republican: the bill is subject to selective enforcement. The first opportunity, republican protesters blocking the 826 in Dade, showed that it will not be used if the protesters are of the correct political leaning.
Wise guys recalling the `\826 parking lot'' should be reminded that parking was not the intent, and that republican protests blocking traffic do not help things.
a website that looks like a generic Shopify site that does nothing except let you order the phone
That is only when it is working. Right now, it is stuck on telling me We are checking your browser to make sure you aren't a bot or DDos attack. This process is completely automatic and will only take a moment. Once it is completed, you will be forwarded immediately. DDOS protection by BitMitigate
It has been stuck on that for a while.
Good thing I do not have $500 burning a hole in my pocket, or I would be out of luck. Well, at least I still have the ``free'' phone from my service provider, so I should be able to get by until the web site is working, maybe longer.
May not be the best example of ``political speech'', where the speakers had erected a gallows, entered the building with force and arms, and were carrying cable ties with the expressed intent of using them for restraints.
We may discount the threat by the odds that the speakers were goofs. Still, it had enough look of a real threat that it ought to be deemed worthy of investigation, assuming some police were not tied up greeting the ``Black Lives Matter'' protesters with impressive force.
being occupied by literal Nazis, having towns and villages starved or destroyed, neighbours murdered, etc
Not so much occupied by the krauts, but actually collaborating with them. Yes, there was some resistance, but it was firmly tamped down. This is part of a proud French tradition.
how many more games I need to publish, before I get one successful one
Not sure, but it might be just one, if that one was very good. On the other hand, a metric boatload of not-so-good games may only support you at the ``eating out of dumpsters'' level.
I think you may have a problem with your arguments generally, too. Neither Google, nor the other search engines, generate their value from creating content. Rather, the value from a search engine is that it has recently scoured the web and can tell me where to find the content in which I am interested.
As an example: if I want a great game of a particular genre, I might ask the search engine for such a thing. I would ask, not expecting Google or DuckDuckGo to have written such a game, but expecting rather that they will have links to people who comment on the greatness of particular games, and possibly links to the games themselves.
Do I really need to post the copypasta with all of Trump’s quotes from that speech and the context in which his followers heard them?
If that context includes quotes from the other folks on that platform who more directly called for war upon the U.S. government, then I think you probably need to post that enhanced version. I suppose if you got really ambitious, you might even try to include some context which we can use to distinguish the speeches of Trump & Company from treason.
The U.S. Constitution provides a definition: ``Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.''
So, good luck finding something to distinguish Trump and friends' call for an attack upon the U.S. government, featuring armed replacement of the U.S. flag over the Capitol with a ``Trump'' flag, from treason. For that matter, good luck distinguishing the acts of the armed crowd who overran the Capitol from acts of treason.
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to
Same answer as before. And certainly a better answer than you shall have from the usual troll, who might benefit from some starvation rather than regular feedings.
It is a close call. At least some inaccurate statements may still be protected, especially as they relate to public figures. See NY Times Co. v. Lester B. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). There, the Court called out some inaccuracies in the published advertisement:
Students were expelled after singing national anthem, not My Country
expulsion from school was actually for going to ``white'' lunch counter while not being white
police ring around campus had gaps not mentioned in ad
King was wrongfully arrested 4 times, not 7
Sullivan viewed these things as actionable lies. There were other problems with his view as well, though not enough to deter an Alabama jury from finding for him to the tune of an half-million dollars.
The Court said that some error is inevitable and the First Amendment rights need ``breathing space'. Id. at 271, quoting earlier case. Judgment for Sullivan reversed.
[executive roof services] still have a 4 star+ rating on Google
Certainly one would wonder about whether Google handles paid advertising for Executive Roof Services, or whether they have other motivation.
It is hard to believe that a company so bad that they have to sue over what appear to be accurate 1-star reviews actually deserve to have a 4-star rating. However, some rating services may skew the ratings, possibly in hopes of increased advertising revenue. I am speculating here and have no actual data concerning Google's rating services beyond the report quoted above.
The preferred model is that they pay dividends to stockholders at regular intervals. A company which makes a lot of money should be able to pay bigger dividends. The bigger the dividend, the more the stock is worth.
Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (1995) that is the law absent section 230 immunity
Well, it is the law for one trial judge, absent S:230 immunity. Not exactly a useful precedent, especially in light of the congressional reaction to it.
Oddly enough, I see no reference anywhere to the trial court ruling being sustained on appeal. Nor, in the non-electronic realm, do I recall hearing of a property manager being held liable for what was posted on the cork-board at the end of the hall, with that being sustained on review.
Amy Klobachar is still this naive about how the internet works. Her suggestions on carving section 230 are the embodiment of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Have you any evidence in support of the claim of ``good intentions''?
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
No, the theory is sound. You are simply misunderstanding his use of the term ``strongest''. His argument is indeed of the strongest, much as turkey litter is of the strongest and should only be applied far from the house lest its strength overwhelm.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
Re: Re: [entry onto or remaining on virtual premises]
Not quite. The ``strangers'', a/k/a ``users'', are actually business invitees, intended to be there for the advantage of the business owner. The business owner expected to exercise a bit more care toward his invitees. For instance, a bar owner ought to eject drunks before they become beligerant and injure other patrons. A restaurant ought to eject smokers before they stink up the place and irritate the allergies of the others in there.
In the case of a brick-and-mortar business on real property, the owner invites customers in order to have his business prosper. But if someone becomes a pain in the butt, causing other customers to leave, the business owner withdraws the invitation and boots the undesirable out. The business invitee becomes a trespasser. Few businesses have rules on the wall setting forth the conditions under which undesirables will be booted.
In the case of a virtual business on the internet, evidently Gov DeSantis and others in the crazy crowd wish for it to be different. They would bar business owners from ejecting undesirables, or at least seriously limit the ability to do so.
I am of the view that they ought to offer a convincing explanation for why these businesses ought to be treated differently, stripped of their rights to revoke the business invitations and eject trespassers. In the physical world, the ability to exclude is an essential stick in the bundle of rights that is property; I have seen no compelling argument as to why the virtual world ought to be different in this respect.
On the post: Louisiana & Alabama Attorneys General Set Up Silly Hotline To Report 'Social Media Censorship' They Can't Do Anything About
Re: (memphis)
Sometimes it is not even real actual people who are offended. Twitter had some success in the county seat of Shelby (TN) with their automatic detection and blocking.
On the post: ShotSpotter (Again) Spotted Altering Shots (And Spots) To Better Serve Police Narratives
A Throwdown is a Throwdown
It actually makes more sense this way. Why would cops plant the throwdown far away, which would require additional walking about, when they could throw it down right by where the arrest took place?
It is still problematic that they found no fingerprints on the gun, and no gunshot residue on the arrestee, though that may be explained by the fact that the charges were entirely bogus and the police story was unreliable.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re:
Should be no problem. Even if the recipe is copyrighted, they are not printing and selling copies. And the trademark issue has been discussed separately. A trade secret problem seems unlikely, because the people who know specifics are probably located stateside and in any event are not producing product in the territories.
If they can find the same ingredients, they can mix them how they will. Ingredients may be a problem, because cattle, chickens, sugar cane, and vanilla extract may not be commonly grown in the area, and standards of purity may differ, but they can certainly imitate the original B&J product to the best of their abilities.
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right now, that next looks like Ron DeSantis. As gov of Florida, his most recent highest priority was getting HB1 through the legislature. That piece of work, inspired by the protests following the Floyd killing, essentially criminalizes protests which the police dislike. Tthe expectation is that the police will dislike protests by darker-complected folks, many of whom were included in the Floyd protests. There was little effort to put lipstick on the pig that was the impetus for HB1.
Not to worry if you are adequately white and republican: the bill is subject to selective enforcement. The first opportunity, republican protesters blocking the 826 in Dade, showed that it will not be used if the protesters are of the correct political leaning.
Wise guys recalling the `\826 parking lot'' should be reminded that parking was not the intent, and that republican protests blocking traffic do not help things.
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
Re: Re: Market Failure
That is only when it is working. Right now, it is stuck on telling me
We are checking your browser to make sure you aren't a bot or DDos attack. This process is completely automatic and will only take a moment. Once it is completed, you will be forwarded immediately.DDOS protection by BitMitigateIt has been stuck on that for a while.
Good thing I do not have $500 burning a hole in my pocket, or I would be out of luck. Well, at least I still have the ``free'' phone from my service provider, so I should be able to get by until the web site is working, maybe longer.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
May not be the best example of ``political speech'', where the speakers had erected a gallows, entered the building with force and arms, and were carrying cable ties with the expressed intent of using them for restraints.
We may discount the threat by the odds that the speakers were goofs. Still, it had enough look of a real threat that it ought to be deemed worthy of investigation, assuming some police were not tied up greeting the ``Black Lives Matter'' protesters with impressive force.
On the post: President Of France Sues Citizen Over Billboard Comparing Macron To Hitler
Re: Re: Re: So this means…,
Not so much occupied by the krauts, but actually collaborating with them. Yes, there was some resistance, but it was firmly tamped down. This is part of a proud French tradition.
On the post: Man Who Sued Apple For Failing To Save Him From Porn Now Suing US Attorney General To Strike Down Section 230
Re:
Technically, the correct term is ``Hungarian Group Entertainment'', sometimes abbreviated HGE.
On the post: Man Who Sued Apple For Failing To Save Him From Porn Now Suing US Attorney General To Strike Down Section 230
Re: Re: Re:
That one is from New Jersey.
On the post: Oatly Loses Trademark Suit Against Glebe Farm Foods' PureOaty Product
Re:
Interestingly enough, England has a ``loser pays'' system. The U.S. has that for a few types of cases, too.
On the post: Copyright Ruins Everything Again: How Dare A Sports Writer Get People Excited About The Olympics!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interest in
Not sure, but it might be just one, if that one was very good. On the other hand, a metric boatload of not-so-good games may only support you at the ``eating out of dumpsters'' level.
I think you may have a problem with your arguments generally, too. Neither Google, nor the other search engines, generate their value from creating content. Rather, the value from a search engine is that it has recently scoured the web and can tell me where to find the content in which I am interested.
As an example: if I want a great game of a particular genre, I might ask the search engine for such a thing. I would ask, not expecting Google or DuckDuckGo to have written such a game, but expecting rather that they will have links to people who comment on the greatness of particular games, and possibly links to the games themselves.
On the post: Disentangling Disinformation: Not As Easy As It Looks
Re: [ copy pasta ]
If that context includes quotes from the other folks on that platform who more directly called for war upon the U.S. government, then I think you probably need to post that enhanced version. I suppose if you got really ambitious, you might even try to include some context which we can use to distinguish the speeches of Trump & Company from treason.
The U.S. Constitution provides a definition: ``Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.''
So, good luck finding something to distinguish Trump and friends' call for an attack upon the U.S. government, featuring armed replacement of the U.S. flag over the Capitol with a ``Trump'' flag, from treason. For that matter, good luck distinguishing the acts of the armed crowd who overran the Capitol from acts of treason.
On the post: Last Month In An LA Court I Witnessed The Future Of A World Without Section 230; It Was A Mess
Re: [same question]
Same answer as before. And certainly a better answer than you shall have from the usual troll, who might benefit from some starvation rather than regular feedings.
On the post: Last Month In An LA Court I Witnessed The Future Of A World Without Section 230; It Was A Mess
Re: Re: Trademark Lawyers Would Hate Us
It is a close call. At least some inaccurate statements may still be protected, especially as they relate to public figures. See NY Times Co. v. Lester B. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). There, the Court called out some inaccuracies in the published advertisement:
Sullivan viewed these things as actionable lies. There were other problems with his view as well, though not enough to deter an Alabama jury from finding for him to the tune of an half-million dollars.
The Court said that some error is inevitable and the First Amendment rights need ``breathing space'. Id. at 271, quoting earlier case. Judgment for Sullivan reversed.
On the post: Streisand Effect Still Works: Vancouver Roofing Company Hit With Negative Reviews After Suing Over A Negative Review
Re:
Certainly one would wonder about whether Google handles paid advertising for Executive Roof Services, or whether they have other motivation.
It is hard to believe that a company so bad that they have to sue over what appear to be accurate 1-star reviews actually deserve to have a 4-star rating. However, some rating services may skew the ratings, possibly in hopes of increased advertising revenue. I am speculating here and have no actual data concerning Google's rating services beyond the report quoted above.
On the post: Netflix Finally Faces Competition, Tries To Pretend Otherwise
Re: Re:
The preferred model is that they pay dividends to stockholders at regular intervals. A company which makes a lot of money should be able to pay bigger dividends. The bigger the dividend, the more the stock is worth.
On the post: Senators Klobuchar And Lujan Release Ridiculous, Blatantly Unconstitutional Bill To Make Facebook Liable For Health Misinformation
Re: Re: Re: Don't Be So Certain
Well, it is the law for one trial judge, absent S:230 immunity. Not exactly a useful precedent, especially in light of the congressional reaction to it.
Oddly enough, I see no reference anywhere to the trial court ruling being sustained on appeal. Nor, in the non-electronic realm, do I recall hearing of a property manager being held liable for what was posted on the cork-board at the end of the hall, with that being sustained on review.
On the post: Senators Klobuchar And Lujan Release Ridiculous, Blatantly Unconstitutional Bill To Make Facebook Liable For Health Misinformation
Re:
Have you any evidence in support of the claim of ``good intentions''?
Next >>