You'd like to think the press learned a little something from the net neutrality repeal and the last four years of Trumpism
One of the important takeaways from Trump's time is that credibility matters. And just as how the corrupt media got wrecked in 2016, so did Net Neutrality proponents when they did their chicken little prediction back in 2017. Perhaps Axios' article isn't the best. But it sure is better than the predictions that the internet would break if the government repealed net neutrality. So let there be a competing viewpoint. Competition is good, and it might earn Axios some credibility if their prediction is better than the others. Give neutral reporting viewpoints a chance, and let readers decide.
Perhaps. But let it not be said that tech companies are willing to cater to market demands. They would rather lose money and play politics, than make money if it allows a dissenting message.
You can't blame Trump for the popular vote. Hillary made the decision to win NY and CA in a landslide. Despite her local campaign managers on the ground in states like MI and WI begging her to shore up support, she couldn't be bothered to campaign in those flyover states, and risk getting put on the spot in a politically hostile environment with the cameras rolling.
So you are proposing that Trump got elected to help with the "gesticulating wildly" ?
Trump got elected because a ton of people wanted certain policy positions, which weren't being fulfilled by anyone from either mainstream party. Despite his past reputation, and having never held office before, and also having nearly every media outlet denouncing him, he was still chosen. This phone is nearly the same: many people still want these features in a product so badly that they might disregard everything else.
Of course this all assumes that you genuinely care about privacy and aren't just gesticulating wildly based on a bunch of bullshit fed to you by a NYC real estate conman with a terrible combover.
This is precisely why Trump got elected. There is huge demand for this kind of product, such that some people are willing to throw money at it. It's kind of a shame that major manufacturers aren't willing to fulfill it, and now privacy interests and censorship interests must clash.
That would be an implementation detail - ironically through collusion of its own between attractive patent locations. Sometimes calling their bluff is what works.
Certainly. I'm open to the idea that it could work. Personally, I'd like to see some tariffs involved. Perhaps they can patent it elsewhere. But the majority of value in a product is not its invention, but its production. And if it has to be manufactured locally, then it's probably okay for some overseas research department to eat the cost of development, while the jobs and products are enjoyed here.
I'm primarily worried about collusion, where two companies decide to get together, one cuts research so that the other gains the patent, and then they agree to return the favor next time.
you are a firm believer that the gov't should be forcing private business to operate how you feel they should be operating, and not what the law and the free market allow.
I believe the free market should be allowed until the corporations begin cheating the system. Then there should be a vote to change the law.
One of the risks that I can forsee with this kind of arrangement is that as soon as one company learns that another is also developing the same idea, that one of them might decide to just quit. Similar to how corporations are willing to relocate to tax friendly environments, researchers will probably avoid developing anything in a location that doesn't reward first-to-patent. Prepare for some corporate collusion, especially if they think they can get a better deal in another nearby location.
Some of the "state of war" thing is just a smokescreen. For example, the Israelis and Saudis are effectively allies now in opposition to Iran. Imagine, however, that a country could "leak" some of its technical expertise to private industry, then a private company (NSO in this case) performs the mercenary hacking, the information gets shared with the originating nation, and then everyone claims plausible deniability. It seems too convenient.
Something tells me that this company isn't in business just to serve the Mexican government in its effort to snoop on drug lords. While learning of the targets is interesting, I really want to know where the bulk of the money is coming from.
You need to stop getting your news from garbage ignorant websites.
It sounds like you heard the White House official press briefing yesterday. So it doesn't matter if I cite MSN or Yahoo News, they still said they were doing it. Free speech advocates don't like the idea of the government directing companies on which people to censor.
Considering that most big tech companies are now taking orders from the federal government on what speech to ban, the Florida law would be seen as protecting speech, not abridging speech. Tech companies cannot claim that their speech is being violated when they also consider the posted speech to be owned by their user base.
except CDA neither attempts to interpret the constitution
Section 230 does potentially attempt to violate states rights, in violation of the 10th Amendment. Federal law is normally only empowered to affect interstate commerce. Unless tech companies begin reclassifying social media posts as financial transactions, simply engaging in far reaching speech is not something within of the scope of congressional enumeration. To be sure, FL will have the deck stacked against it, thanks to disastrous decisions like the Darby case that considers practically anything that anyone does in any place as having a vague effect on commerce somehow.
Most platforms claim that the speech posted by its users is not the speech of the platform in order to avoid liability. Therefore social media corporations are not doing the speaking, and are not being compelled. Social media is not being compelled anymore than a paper company is being compelled if someone writes something with which they disagree on a piece of their paper. There is no first amendment right to censor others.
There is no effective competition. Twitter's monthly active user count dwarfs that of other networks. There is certainly a lot of value in the Network Effect.
As long as there's competition, coffee at every other restaurant and grocery store and gas station, then we can rest easy. But if they were ever to become the dominant source of all coffee in the nation, then yes.
Forcing me to HOST your nonsense speech violates the 1st Amendment.
More speech is clearly not an abridgment of speech.
On the post: Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe They Did
I don't like those characteristics. I'm just saying he has greater credibility than the corrupt media.
On the post: Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Maybe They Did
And yet, he still has greater credibility than the corrupt media.
On the post: Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality
Maybe They Did
One of the important takeaways from Trump's time is that credibility matters. And just as how the corrupt media got wrecked in 2016, so did Net Neutrality proponents when they did their chicken little prediction back in 2017. Perhaps Axios' article isn't the best. But it sure is better than the predictions that the internet would break if the government repealed net neutrality. So let there be a competing viewpoint. Competition is good, and it might earn Axios some credibility if their prediction is better than the others. Give neutral reporting viewpoints a chance, and let readers decide.
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Failure
Demands for uncensored communication.
Google or Apple could be charging hundreds of dollars per phone for such a product, but they choose not to.
Unfortunately, the Made in America smartphone is unavailable from any manufacturer, so that was never an option.
I'm saying people are willing to pay money and sacrifice their privacy in exchange for freedom.
Better watch out, or else Jen Psaki is going to have you censored for coronavirus misinformation!
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Failure
Perhaps. But let it not be said that tech companies are willing to cater to market demands. They would rather lose money and play politics, than make money if it allows a dissenting message.
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Market Failure
You can't blame Trump for the popular vote. Hillary made the decision to win NY and CA in a landslide. Despite her local campaign managers on the ground in states like MI and WI begging her to shore up support, she couldn't be bothered to campaign in those flyover states, and risk getting put on the spot in a politically hostile environment with the cameras rolling.
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
Re: Re: Market Failure
Trump got elected because a ton of people wanted certain policy positions, which weren't being fulfilled by anyone from either mainstream party. Despite his past reputation, and having never held office before, and also having nearly every media outlet denouncing him, he was still chosen. This phone is nearly the same: many people still want these features in a product so badly that they might disregard everything else.
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
Market Failure
This is precisely why Trump got elected. There is huge demand for this kind of product, such that some people are willing to throw money at it. It's kind of a shame that major manufacturers aren't willing to fulfill it, and now privacy interests and censorship interests must clash.
On the post: Patent Quality Week: This One Weird Trick Could Solve Most Patent Quality Problems
Re: Re: Competitive Environment
Certainly. I'm open to the idea that it could work. Personally, I'd like to see some tariffs involved. Perhaps they can patent it elsewhere. But the majority of value in a product is not its invention, but its production. And if it has to be manufactured locally, then it's probably okay for some overseas research department to eat the cost of development, while the jobs and products are enjoyed here.
On the post: Patent Quality Week: This One Weird Trick Could Solve Most Patent Quality Problems
Re: Re: Competitive Environment
I'm primarily worried about collusion, where two companies decide to get together, one cuts research so that the other gains the patent, and then they agree to return the favor next time.
I believe the free market should be allowed until the corporations begin cheating the system. Then there should be a vote to change the law.
On the post: Patent Quality Week: This One Weird Trick Could Solve Most Patent Quality Problems
Competitive Environment
One of the risks that I can forsee with this kind of arrangement is that as soon as one company learns that another is also developing the same idea, that one of them might decide to just quit. Similar to how corporations are willing to relocate to tax friendly environments, researchers will probably avoid developing anything in a location that doesn't reward first-to-patent. Prepare for some corporate collusion, especially if they think they can get a better deal in another nearby location.
On the post: Leaked Data Shows NSO Group's Malware Was Used To Target Journalists, Activists, And World Leaders
Re:
Some of the "state of war" thing is just a smokescreen. For example, the Israelis and Saudis are effectively allies now in opposition to Iran. Imagine, however, that a country could "leak" some of its technical expertise to private industry, then a private company (NSO in this case) performs the mercenary hacking, the information gets shared with the originating nation, and then everyone claims plausible deniability. It seems too convenient.
On the post: Leaked Data Shows NSO Group's Malware Was Used To Target Journalists, Activists, And World Leaders
Follow The Money
Something tells me that this company isn't in business just to serve the Mexican government in its effort to snoop on drug lords. While learning of the targets is interesting, I really want to know where the bulk of the money is coming from.
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
Re: Re: Re:
It sounds like you heard the White House official press briefing yesterday. So it doesn't matter if I cite MSN or Yahoo News, they still said they were doing it. Free speech advocates don't like the idea of the government directing companies on which people to censor.
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
Re:
Considering that most big tech companies are now taking orders from the federal government on what speech to ban, the Florida law would be seen as protecting speech, not abridging speech. Tech companies cannot claim that their speech is being violated when they also consider the posted speech to be owned by their user base.
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
Re:
Section 230 does potentially attempt to violate states rights, in violation of the 10th Amendment. Federal law is normally only empowered to affect interstate commerce. Unless tech companies begin reclassifying social media posts as financial transactions, simply engaging in far reaching speech is not something within of the scope of congressional enumeration. To be sure, FL will have the deck stacked against it, thanks to disastrous decisions like the Darby case that considers practically anything that anyone does in any place as having a vague effect on commerce somehow.
On the post: Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment
Re: Re: Not Compelled
After you make the purchase, it's yours. And every time you click the Submit button, the speech is yours and the transaction is complete.
On the post: Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment
Not Compelled
Most platforms claim that the speech posted by its users is not the speech of the platform in order to avoid liability. Therefore social media corporations are not doing the speaking, and are not being compelled. Social media is not being compelled anymore than a paper company is being compelled if someone writes something with which they disagree on a piece of their paper. There is no first amendment right to censor others.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
There is no effective competition. Twitter's monthly active user count dwarfs that of other networks. There is certainly a lot of value in the Network Effect.
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
As long as there's competition, coffee at every other restaurant and grocery store and gas station, then we can rest easy. But if they were ever to become the dominant source of all coffee in the nation, then yes.
More speech is clearly not an abridgment of speech.
Next >>