There once was a political party who used to claim they were for smaller government. That party seems to be currently bent on more and more intrusion...from the government, ever expanding rules and agencies designed to be overbearing, and unaccountable, with a free hand to 'know' what one was thinking.
To correct for an obtusely worded law that was declared unconstitutional they decide to do violence to the word violence, with the implicit intent on removing more people from our country. A country what was once declared the land of the free and home of the brave who welcomed immigrants with fairly open arms.
Doing violence, to them, now includes that you might have thought about the possibility that someday, somehow, in some dastardly way, considered bringing harm to another. Bring on the thought police, and while at it, consider how this law might pass Constitutional muster.
Expressed desire to associate with people you learn to hate
Then the managers need these additional qualifications:
Stubbornness
The ability to lie with a straight face
Proactive demonstration of behavior toeing the company line
Poor listening skills
What more could TSA ask for in an organization committed to harassing the populace without messing up any terrorists plans, they missed the bombs after all.
The part I find fascinating/disgusting is that not only are other police departments willing to hire officers with such reputations/histories of bad behavior, but put them into positions where they will have impact/infect other officers. And then the department that was responsible for/condoned the original bad behavior (even if the DA failed to make the case they should have made easily) invites her over as an expert/vector to spread an anti public spew of invective.
Good to see the public expressing their views on the subject in Tulsa.
Re: Re: So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
There is only one way to change the Constitution, and there is a process for that, one which does not involve the president.
There are various ways to interpret the Constitution, and they all involve courts. While a prosecutor might lay out some novel concept, the decision is in the courts hands, through various levels.
No matter what Trump suggest about 1st Amendment protected behavior, he cannot order it to stop. He already tried with the protesters during the inaugural but lost (almost?) every case.
Don't know if it was asked for, but there doesn't appear to be any 'good faith exception' in this case. Nor is the idea of 'inevitable discovery' raising it's ugly head. Those are both great things.
Once the cops got the pen registers granted and the cell site information, they should have been able to put eyes on the suspect. Why they didn't is left up to conjecture. TOG suggests laziness or incompetence. I am going to suggest some of both, plus arrogance. Law enforcement has become enamored with technology, and they should get over it. Yes it is useful, but the old techniques work, and have been proven in many many courts. Not all technology has.
Pray tell, which rule of acquisition did they fail to comport with?
Even Zek took advice from a female. Of course he did everything he could to both deny and/or distance himself from that error. Then later formed a partnership with Quarks mother. Oh, the horror.
In this case however, he is not a Ferengi, he is however an over opinionated and obsequious lout who has a very hard time actually backing up any claim he makes.
Doesn't that lead directly to Mike's original premise, that platforms should not be using algorithms or policy to do their moderating, but using users? Like what happens here on Techdirt? The method of moderation by users might take different forms, blocking a user, flagging them (like here) or just mentally ignoring their posts, or whatever was listed in the original article, or whatever might be thought up in the future.
The point of this piece is that Google decided, for unstated reasons (reasons they won't own up to) to block advertising revenue to that article (at least we think it's only that article). What is their purpose in doing so? Were their feelings hurt? Did they think that article denigrated them in some way? Did they perceive that it might cause them to spend some money on changing the way things work on their various sites? Hard to tell when they won't talk to you.
That some crackpots will take some Internet dialog and spill it over into real world violent actions is not the fault of the Internet or any platform, or any modification system, or lack there of, or of banning some particular entity. It is the fault of the crackpots. Would that there be some method of 100% identifying crackpots before they go shooting up someplace, but there isn't.
Blaming video games or the Internet isn't the answer. Better psychology might be, but that is a science that still has a long way to go, and deciding that someone should be 'closely watched or committed' is still very subjective. Besides, Reagan got rid of many of our psych wards, what would we do with them? Just putting them in prison won't help them and might harm them, but then what if they haven't committed a crime, yet? I don't like the current answers to my questions, but I haven't seen any better, yet.
WTF do cookies and VPN's have to do with setting up new Gmail accounts? I have tried. I bought a second tablet, intended for international use, with a different username. Couldn't get Google to give me one because I would not subject anyone I call friend to receiving the SMS message. Why I want a clean identity to cross boarders is no ones business, except to say, look at what happens to people who cross boarders with electronics.
Also, looking at your comments below, you don't actually have an argument, you just want to argue. Go argue with yourself.
No reason there shouldn't be links between them, is there? Use one for personal stuff and the others for official stuff. They are all real name accounts, why would Facebook have a problem? How long does it take to set up an account? 5 min? 10 min? Even if more, what's the problem?
One cannot make a totally anonymous Gmail account anymore. They require a telephone to send an SMS message to verify ones authenticity. You could use a friends phone for that SMS and then delete the phone number in your account settings, but the trail is laid.
It is relevant because of how any individual might interpret a particular situation. Is it revenge, or as Christenson points out something that wasn't revenge originally, but left around too long and might be interpreted differently? The point of the Justice quote is that it is about interpretation. Some might say porn, some might say sexy, some might say yawn.
Same thing with whether something is revenge or not revenge. Same thing with other forms of speech, with the exceptions noted in the article.
Not to mention the Justice that stated (paraphrased here) "Porn is hard to define, but I know it when I see it". Well, there is that Justice's view, and then there are other views. The eye of the beholder and all, and yes context makes a difference.
"...another regional court (in Heidelberg) just ruled the opposite way, saying that as a private company, Facebook had every right to manage its platforms by its own rules."
Except the private company is not managing by its own rules, they are following government directives. Hmm, it's Germany, not the US, no 1st Amendment with rules like "Congress shall make no law..." But shouldn't the court correctly identify where the damn rules are coming from?
But you're not? Quite the demented imagination you have there. You see yourself above all others, but have no leg to stand on. I think your self-imposed air of superiority is causing you altitude sickness.
You know, for a fact, that I voted for any incumbent? How is that possible? How is it that we, but not you, created these "power structures" and that we, but not you "got what we asked for"?
You 'get what you deserve' guys just crack me up. Remember, when you point your finger, there are three other fingers pointing back at you.
I don't like the fact "that people in power get special privileges" and I do what I can to make changes, to the system, as it is the system that allows this, not individuals. What have you done? What are you doing? Argue for changing the system (I have expressed my thoughts on that many times, go read) and tell us how you are going about it. I feel no need to reiterate anything just because YOUR lazy.
The only ones surprised by this outcome are those regulators who believed AT&T's promises (whether they believed them or not isn't the point, they accepted them as part of the deal to approve) in the first place.
Is there any tracking of regulators and their employment down the road, either in the past or for the future?
On the post: Congress Adds A Bunch Of Non-Violent Crimes To The Violent Crimes List
Just don't think about it.
To correct for an obtusely worded law that was declared unconstitutional they decide to do violence to the word violence, with the implicit intent on removing more people from our country. A country what was once declared the land of the free and home of the brave who welcomed immigrants with fairly open arms.
Doing violence, to them, now includes that you might have thought about the possibility that someday, somehow, in some dastardly way, considered bringing harm to another. Bring on the thought police, and while at it, consider how this law might pass Constitutional muster.
On the post: TSA Decides The Path To Flight Safety Runs Through A Passenger's Prosthetic Leg
The All Star Team
I imagine that there are some prerequisites for TSA agents hiring. Here's what I think they might be:
Failed application for some other law enforcement agency
Turned down by private security
Psychological profile expressing sadistic tendencies
Low IQ score
Then the managers need these additional qualifications:
Stubbornness
The ability to lie with a straight face
Proactive demonstration of behavior toeing the company line
What more could TSA ask for in an organization committed to harassing the populace without messing up any terrorists plans, they missed the bombs after all.
On the post: DOJ And State Attorneys General Threatening Social Media Companies Over Moderation Practices Is A First Amendment Issue
Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
On the post: DOJ And State Attorneys General Threatening Social Media Companies Over Moderation Practices Is A First Amendment Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re: So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
On the post: Officer Who Killed Unarmed Man Now Teaching Officers How To Go About The Difficult Business Of Being Alive
Damn
Good to see the public expressing their views on the subject in Tulsa.
On the post: DOJ And State Attorneys General Threatening Social Media Companies Over Moderation Practices Is A First Amendment Issue
Re: Re: So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
There are various ways to interpret the Constitution, and they all involve courts. While a prosecutor might lay out some novel concept, the decision is in the courts hands, through various levels.
No matter what Trump suggest about 1st Amendment protected behavior, he cannot order it to stop. He already tried with the protesters during the inaugural but lost (almost?) every case.
On the post: Florida Appeals Court Tells Law Enforcement It Needs Warrants To Deploy Stingrays
No easy outs, this time
Once the cops got the pen registers granted and the cell site information, they should have been able to put eyes on the suspect. Why they didn't is left up to conjecture. TOG suggests laziness or incompetence. I am going to suggest some of both, plus arrogance. Law enforcement has become enamored with technology, and they should get over it. Yes it is useful, but the old techniques work, and have been proven in many many courts. Not all technology has.
On the post: German Court Tells Facebook It Can't Delete Comments, Even Though German Law Says It Must Delete Comments
Re: Re: Re:
Even Zek took advice from a female. Of course he did everything he could to both deny and/or distance himself from that error. Then later formed a partnership with Quarks mother. Oh, the horror.
In this case however, he is not a Ferengi, he is however an over opinionated and obsequious lout who has a very hard time actually backing up any claim he makes.
Stop feeding him.
On the post: Google Moderation Team Decides My Piece About The Impossible Nature Of Content Moderation Is 'Dangerous Or Derogatory'
Re:
The point of this piece is that Google decided, for unstated reasons (reasons they won't own up to) to block advertising revenue to that article (at least we think it's only that article). What is their purpose in doing so? Were their feelings hurt? Did they think that article denigrated them in some way? Did they perceive that it might cause them to spend some money on changing the way things work on their various sites? Hard to tell when they won't talk to you.
That some crackpots will take some Internet dialog and spill it over into real world violent actions is not the fault of the Internet or any platform, or any modification system, or lack there of, or of banning some particular entity. It is the fault of the crackpots. Would that there be some method of 100% identifying crackpots before they go shooting up someplace, but there isn't.
Blaming video games or the Internet isn't the answer. Better psychology might be, but that is a science that still has a long way to go, and deciding that someone should be 'closely watched or committed' is still very subjective. Besides, Reagan got rid of many of our psych wards, what would we do with them? Just putting them in prison won't help them and might harm them, but then what if they haven't committed a crime, yet? I don't like the current answers to my questions, but I haven't seen any better, yet.
On the post: United Airlines Made Its App Stop Working On My Phone, And What This Says About How Broken The Mobile Tech Space Is
Re: Re: It's Planned Obsolescence
Are you sure you don't mean Granny from The Beverly Hillbillies?
On the post: Google Moderation Team Decides My Piece About The Impossible Nature Of Content Moderation Is 'Dangerous Or Derogatory'
Re: Re: Re: "Google isn't biased!"
Also, looking at your comments below, you don't actually have an argument, you just want to argue. Go argue with yourself.
On the post: Court Denies Politician's Attempt To Dismiss Lawsuit Over Banning Critics From His Facebook Page
We only elect the best and the brightest
Personal account: Tom LePage
Official account: Governor Tom LePage
Campaign account: Tom LePage for Governor
No reason there shouldn't be links between them, is there? Use one for personal stuff and the others for official stuff. They are all real name accounts, why would Facebook have a problem? How long does it take to set up an account? 5 min? 10 min? Even if more, what's the problem?
On the post: Google Moderation Team Decides My Piece About The Impossible Nature Of Content Moderation Is 'Dangerous Or Derogatory'
Re: "Google isn't biased!"
On the post: Vermont's Revenge Porn Law Ruled Constitutional... With An Incredibly Confused Ruling
Re: Re: Re: A way of looking at revenge porn
Same thing with whether something is revenge or not revenge. Same thing with other forms of speech, with the exceptions noted in the article.
On the post: Vermont's Revenge Porn Law Ruled Constitutional... With An Incredibly Confused Ruling
Re: A way of looking at revenge porn
On the post: German Court Tells Facebook It Can't Delete Comments, Even Though German Law Says It Must Delete Comments
Court confusion is confused
Except the private company is not managing by its own rules, they are following government directives. Hmm, it's Germany, not the US, no 1st Amendment with rules like "Congress shall make no law..." But shouldn't the court correctly identify where the damn rules are coming from?
On the post: Utah's Top Court Says Cops Can't Use Federal Loophole To Dodge Criminal Charge Requirement For Forfeitures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Utah's Top Court Says Cops Can't Use Federal Loophole To Dodge Criminal Charge Requirement For Forfeitures
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, for a fact, that I voted for any incumbent? How is that possible? How is it that we, but not you, created these "power structures" and that we, but not you "got what we asked for"?
You 'get what you deserve' guys just crack me up. Remember, when you point your finger, there are three other fingers pointing back at you.
I don't like the fact "that people in power get special privileges" and I do what I can to make changes, to the system, as it is the system that allows this, not individuals. What have you done? What are you doing? Argue for changing the system (I have expressed my thoughts on that many times, go read) and tell us how you are going about it. I feel no need to reiterate anything just because YOUR lazy.
On the post: Utah's Top Court Says Cops Can't Use Federal Loophole To Dodge Criminal Charge Requirement For Forfeitures
Re: Re:
Except when it's someone in power, like law enforcement, or a politician, or with lots and lots of money.
On the post: After Nabbing Billions In Tax Breaks, AT&T's Promised Job Growth Magically Evaporates
In Truth
Is there any tracking of regulators and their employment down the road, either in the past or for the future?
Next >>