"We've seen how certain products aren't more widely used because they have more useful features, but instead because they created a large network first."
You mean because that's what the users want, not because they're forced to and need government protection.
"Despite the ubiquity, many are clamoring for a break-up of the big tech companies."
No, they really, really aren't. It's a small bunch of anti-social conservatives and grandstanding politicians.
"But the Lincoln Project shouldn't be forced to waste its own time and money just because Ivanka and Jared feel like wasting theirs."
The Lincoln Project are making serious bank out of this endeavor, so I have absolutely no issue with them wasting a ton of money that would otherwise be used to line their own pockets. If anything it'd provide even more defamation law precedent and probably be entertaining to watch.
"So let me get this straight, you are quoting from a think tank funded by nothing but left leaning donors and organizations, to support the claim that a left leaning organization (Antifa), that is funded by those same donors, is not a threat ... Yeah that works for me (sarc)"
So let me get this straight, you're claiming that Antifa is a threatening "organization" even though the FBI, who've never met a terrorist threat they couldn't invent from whole cloth, can't seem to find any evidence of such a threat... Yeah that works for me (sarc)
"Also, it's pretty hard to call it "private" property when they link it into every fucking major site out there, and openly invite in everyone on the planet."
Do you seriously not understand the difference between 'private' and 'private property'? Really?!
If you invite random strangers off the street into the house you own, it's not very private any more, but's it's still your privately-owned property. If you ask them not to piss on the couch, and then they piss on the couch, you can tell them to leave!
Do you need this simple analogy explained further?
Please, please, please tell me this is a just dick lawyer acting like a lawyerly dick, coz the alternative is that Bill Murray ok'd this and is actually a bit of an asshole in real life, and that would be a little heartbreaking.
It's impossible to take you even the slightest bit seriously when you (a) either don't understand what the First Amendment actually says or are willfully misrepresenting it, and (b) somehow think a mission statement (i.e. advertising!) has more legal weight than the Constitution.
There is no good faith argument from you here or in any of your other similar comments. This has all been explained to you countless times. You're either a fool or a liar.
Don't forget that huge, uber-socialist, overly-revered entity that sucks up about 15% of government spending. Y'know, the one with all the cool pew-pew toys.
It's not about what they believe but about the narrative that must be pushed to deflect blame from cops that are short on competence, useful skills, bravery, empathy, decency or common sense.
Re: Re: Re: Being sacked by the government isn't censorship
So where exactly do you draw the line on government employees' speech, coz it sounds like you don't see a line at all. This guy has raised legitimate concerns about his fitness for the job. Care for life, no matter who's, is kinda the EMS's thing.
I genuinely struggle to understand how you could read that conservatives are being given special treatment by not being punished for breaking the rules and call that "being treated normally". Are you just trolling? Willfully ignorant? Just a bit slow?
On the post: President-For-Life Hopeful Donald Trump Issues Executive Order Mandating 'Patriotic' Education For Kids
Re: This site
"The specious lies and bias from a site like this is exactly why THE FIRST AMENDMANT need to be removed/rethought."
Just correcting that to reflect what you're actually saying.
On the post: President-For-Life Hopeful Donald Trump Issues Executive Order Mandating 'Patriotic' Education For Kids
Re: Re:
"I didn't vote for Trump OR Biden, if that helps."
No, it literally doesn't help one tiny bit.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Fix Politicians' Issues With Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Competition
"We've seen how certain products aren't more widely used because they have more useful features, but instead because they created a large network first."
You mean because that's what the users want, not because they're forced to and need government protection.
"Despite the ubiquity, many are clamoring for a break-up of the big tech companies."
No, they really, really aren't. It's a small bunch of anti-social conservatives and grandstanding politicians.
On the post: Wall Street: Traditional Cable TV Sector 'Unraveling' In Wake Of Covid
Re: I'll buy Theaters
'What exactly about covid is harmful to cable and yet helpful for their streaming competition?"
It has very clearly highlighted how the latter provides much better value for money than the former.
On the post: Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner Threaten Defamation Suit Over Lincoln Project's Non-Defamatory Billboards
These are not the good guys
"But the Lincoln Project shouldn't be forced to waste its own time and money just because Ivanka and Jared feel like wasting theirs."
The Lincoln Project are making serious bank out of this endeavor, so I have absolutely no issue with them wasting a ton of money that would otherwise be used to line their own pockets. If anything it'd provide even more defamation law precedent and probably be entertaining to watch.
https://www.pajiba.com/politics/the-lincoln-project-is-the-biggest-grift-of-them-all.php
On the post: Federal Officers Are Still Struggling To Find Evidence Of A Massive Antifa Conspiracy
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So let me get this straight, you are quoting from a think tank funded by nothing but left leaning donors and organizations, to support the claim that a left leaning organization (Antifa), that is funded by those same donors, is not a threat ... Yeah that works for me (sarc)"
So let me get this straight, you're claiming that Antifa is a threatening "organization" even though the FBI, who've never met a terrorist threat they couldn't invent from whole cloth, can't seem to find any evidence of such a threat... Yeah that works for me (sarc)
On the post: The GOP's Blisteringly Hypocritical Road From Whining About Net Neutrality To Supporting Trump's Idiotic Attack On Social Media
Re: Bad Policy
"Support for bad net neutrality policy doesn't fix the current problem."
Support for broadly popular consumer protection policy doesn't fix the current imaginary problem.
FTFY
On the post: Republicans, Who Have Made Sure The Federal Election Commission Can't Do Anything, File A Complaint About Twitter's Moderation Practices
Re:
"Twitter is supposed to be an open platform..."
Dude, that's a marketing slogan. You're basically claiming that this should trump the Constitution, while is quite a thing to lean so hard into...
On the post: Republicans, Who Have Made Sure The Federal Election Commission Can't Do Anything, File A Complaint About Twitter's Moderation Practices
Re: Re: Re:
"They are desperate to prevent Americans to hear the other side of the argument."
Truly the mildest display of desperation I've ever (barely) seen.
On the post: Facebook & Twitter Try To Limit The Spread Of Sketchy NY Post Story; Leading To Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two Standards
"Fortunately, the solution is for government to "step out" of Section 230 protection for open platforms."
Do you want an Internet with no user-generated content? Because that's how you get an Internet with no user-generated content!
On the post: Because Congress Apparently Has NOTHING AT ALL IMPORTANT To Work On, It Introduced TWO MORE Section 230 Bills Yesterday
Re: Re:
"Also, it's pretty hard to call it "private" property when they link it into every fucking major site out there, and openly invite in everyone on the planet."
Do you seriously not understand the difference between 'private' and 'private property'? Really?!
If you invite random strangers off the street into the house you own, it's not very private any more, but's it's still your privately-owned property. If you ask them not to piss on the couch, and then they piss on the couch, you can tell them to leave!
Do you need this simple analogy explained further?
On the post: Bill Murray Responds To Doobie Bros. Copyright Letter With Snark, No Offer To Pay For Use Of Song
Oh no
Please, please, please tell me this is a just dick lawyer acting like a lawyerly dick, coz the alternative is that Bill Murray ok'd this and is actually a bit of an asshole in real life, and that would be a little heartbreaking.
On the post: Trump Nominates Guy Who Wants To Police Speech Online To Be The Next FCC Commissioner
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But the first amendment also does not permit you to editorialize and publish with impunity, simultaneously."
Yes it does! It only stops the government from doing things, nobody else. You know this. Why do you keep spewing this crap?
"Since there is little practical difference between government censorship versus corporatist censorship..."
Legally there's every difference in the world.
On the post: Trump Nominates Guy Who Wants To Police Speech Online To Be The Next FCC Commissioner
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's impossible to take you even the slightest bit seriously when you (a) either don't understand what the First Amendment actually says or are willfully misrepresenting it, and (b) somehow think a mission statement (i.e. advertising!) has more legal weight than the Constitution.
There is no good faith argument from you here or in any of your other similar comments. This has all been explained to you countless times. You're either a fool or a liar.
On the post: Actual Facts Undercut Media's Narrative That Law Enforcement Task Force Broke Up A Multi-State Sex Trafficking Operation
Re:
Don't forget that huge, uber-socialist, overly-revered entity that sucks up about 15% of government spending. Y'know, the one with all the cool pew-pew toys.
On the post: Law Enforcement Training: People Saying 'I Can't Breathe' Are Just Suffering From 'Excited Delirium'
Re:
"You can believe what you want..."
It's not about what they believe but about the narrative that must be pushed to deflect blame from cops that are short on competence, useful skills, bravery, empathy, decency or common sense.
On the post: Appeals Court: City Employee's Horrific Facebook Posts About Tamir Rice Shooting Were Likely Protected Speech
Re: Re:
Why not tougher standards for medical personal who express views about wanting to kill someone?
On the post: Appeals Court: City Employee's Horrific Facebook Posts About Tamir Rice Shooting Were Likely Protected Speech
Re: Re: Re: Being sacked by the government isn't censorship
So where exactly do you draw the line on government employees' speech, coz it sounds like you don't see a line at all. This guy has raised legitimate concerns about his fitness for the job. Care for life, no matter who's, is kinda the EMS's thing.
On the post: Why Are There Currently No Ads On Techdirt? Apparently Google Thinks We're Dangerous
Re:
"Granted, there's a difference between govt. censorship and censorship by private entities."
Yep, one is illegal and the other is no different to what you're fully entitled to do in your own home.
On the post: Yes, Facebook Treats Trump Fans Differently: It Has Relaxed The Rules To Give Them More Leeway
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I genuinely struggle to understand how you could read that conservatives are being given special treatment by not being punished for breaking the rules and call that "being treated normally". Are you just trolling? Willfully ignorant? Just a bit slow?
Next >>