Mostly the same reason it's hard to get a doctor's license to practice fully revoked. Because other lawyers & doctors don't want people making it easy to get each other fired. It's a difficult field to enter, and theoretically that should weed out the bad actors.
So, to fire someone, either they have to do something undeniably heinous, or else someone has to string together evidence of continuous, repeated malpractice over years to show their incompetence/malice. And it sounds like Biss is staying just inside the boundries of acceptable practice, he's just constantly pushing right up against that line.
Government egislation & regulation have dropped the ball on this matter. If DNA evidence can be used to convict a person, there should be a clear burden of proof levied on the companies performing this test to show they are accurate & reliable. Any company that fails to demonstrate their tests are reliable should be barred from evidence in a court of law.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Are you referring to the Fairness Doctrine? Because it was thrown out in 1987, so you're extremely uninformed if you're claiming it applies to anyone now.
Oh, and it was never a law. It was just FCC policy. So you're doubly-wrong on that.
And the fact that you have to curse means you lose. It's like having to resort to a "your mom" comment. It shows the weakness of your reply.
Oh, there it is! The "you said the magic word that means I win" gotcha.
Guess what? All that shows is that you don't have a leg to stand on. You're throwing out this made-up schoolyard taunt of a "rule" to proclaim victory so you don't have to actually provide rational rebuttals to anyone anymore, and feel smug about it.
You've resorted to the absolute weakest of retorts, one which disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously again.
See how that works? Anyone can proclaim a nonexistent win condition and it's absolutely meaningless! Try actually supporting your argument instead of this dumbass "I'm taking my ball and going home, that means I win" tactic.
They can and have compelled "speech" before. Hell, just look at some of the cases requiring that company's publish notifications, OHSA signs, 2257 requirements, COPPA, NY's requirement to post and display leadsonline.com information for any resale equipment. So, so many other examples.
This is the dumbest example I've heard someone try. The government requiring a company to adhere to safety regulations & display their compliance is somehow exactly the same as forcing a social media company to allow a politician to proclaim that non-whites are abominations who don't deserve rights. What in the actual fuck are you on?
I'm confused by the fact they keep saying there was rewards for going fast with this filter. If that doesn't exist, how can there be any case to argue?
Whether or not the reward actually exists, the perception created by the app is that the Speed Filter was connected to a rewards system in the app.
That's what this case hinges on. Even if the rewards don't exist, the design of the app may have implied there were. If so, that makes the company liable.
It's like if a McDonald's puts up signs saying "Drive as fast as you can to McDonalds to get the McDouble!" The sign doesn't say that you're getting a McDouble as a reward for speeding, but people might validly think they will get a free sandwich for speeding.
So what position would one expect here than what's visible, attempting to control discussion with "hiding" comments?
You still don't understand how this site works, do you?
See that little red flag after a comment? The one that says Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam? When enough people click that button, that's what hides the comment.
Which means enough people who read these comments think your opinions are worthless to "downvote" you until the comment is hidden. And yet, it's not deleted. Anyone who wants to see your comment can! It's one click away.
And yet, even after I explain this to you, I fully expect you to be back tomorrow making the exact same complaint, pretending you don't understand. I know the spam filter has been explained to you multiple times, but yet you still pretend to not understand how it works.
It's sad, really. You have no life, no self-confidence, and feel the only way to have any control over your life is to spew the same tired complaints onto a website you can't stand, just so you can see people react. As if that gives you some measure of control over them. (Hint: it doesn't.)
Indeed, Twitter’s entire “fake accounts” policy, which it accused Mr. O’Keefe of violating by stating that he “operat[ed] fake accounts,” stems from the Russian disinformation campaign.
I mean, this is just bullshit on its very face. People have known about sockpuppet & meatpuppet accounts since the USENET days. That is what Twitter is talking about, and he clearly knows it. This is O'Keefe lying again.
If I were to make my living room a public forum, then yes.
How the hell would you "make" your living room a public forum? You don't get to make that designation. It's a legal designation, declared by the government. Are you saying you're going to donate your living room to the government?
If they had any smarts they'd stamp out these "bad apples" on their own. They are a threat to the whole system.
Anyone cop who tries to out bad cops gets punished by the police force. They find themselves assigned to the most dangerous beats, get denied backup, are harassed by fellow cops, and are told in no uncertain terms that they should just quit.
Peroza-Benitez landed on his feet, broke his leg, and pitched over. Officer White decided "that looks like he's running" and just fired his taser without even waiting to see if the guy hit the ground or not. Not excusable.
Keep in mind that when Parler types say "1st Amendment," they're using that as a euphemism for "absolute freedom of speech." They thought they were getting a site where they could say anything they wanted without consequence, not realizing they were on a site that actually acknowledged it had to follow the legal definition of the 1st Amendment.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Family's Bizarrely Stupid Defamation Lawsuit Goes Off The Rails
Re: Why?
Mostly the same reason it's hard to get a doctor's license to practice fully revoked. Because other lawyers & doctors don't want people making it easy to get each other fired. It's a difficult field to enter, and theoretically that should weed out the bad actors.
So, to fire someone, either they have to do something undeniably heinous, or else someone has to string together evidence of continuous, repeated malpractice over years to show their incompetence/malice. And it sounds like Biss is staying just inside the boundries of acceptable practice, he's just constantly pushing right up against that line.
On the post: Consumer Groups Get Punchy As Biden Team Lags On Staffing FCC, Restoring Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Long standing problem.
That is the most delusional thing I've heard in a long time.
On the post: Consumer Groups Get Punchy As Biden Team Lags On Staffing FCC, Restoring Net Neutrality
Re: Long standing problem.
The people being hired to do Congress' job are called lobbyists. Still think that's a good idea?
On the post: EFF Tells Court Defendants Must Be Allowed To Examine The DNA Software Used To Convict Them
Government egislation & regulation have dropped the ball on this matter. If DNA evidence can be used to convict a person, there should be a clear burden of proof levied on the companies performing this test to show they are accurate & reliable. Any company that fails to demonstrate their tests are reliable should be barred from evidence in a court of law.
On the post: Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Are you referring to the Fairness Doctrine? Because it was thrown out in 1987, so you're extremely uninformed if you're claiming it applies to anyone now.
Oh, and it was never a law. It was just FCC policy. So you're doubly-wrong on that.
On the post: Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, there it is! The "you said the magic word that means I win" gotcha.
Guess what? All that shows is that you don't have a leg to stand on. You're throwing out this made-up schoolyard taunt of a "rule" to proclaim victory so you don't have to actually provide rational rebuttals to anyone anymore, and feel smug about it.
You've resorted to the absolute weakest of retorts, one which disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously again.
See how that works? Anyone can proclaim a nonexistent win condition and it's absolutely meaningless! Try actually supporting your argument instead of this dumbass "I'm taking my ball and going home, that means I win" tactic.
On the post: Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock
Re: Re:
This is the dumbest example I've heard someone try. The government requiring a company to adhere to safety regulations & display their compliance is somehow exactly the same as forcing a social media company to allow a politician to proclaim that non-whites are abominations who don't deserve rights. What in the actual fuck are you on?
On the post: Chicago PD Oversight Says Officers Racked Up 100 Misconduct Allegations During A Single Wrong Address Raid
Re: Wtf
It's not slop. At that point, it's intentional.
On the post: Florida City Officials Spend $50,000 To Find Out Who Gave Journalists A Public Record
I expect this is $50,000 worth of money laundering in the guise of "investigation."
On the post: Appeals Court Says Families Of Car Crash Victims Can Continue To Sue Snapchat Over Its 'Speed Filter'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sued for making a speedometer?
This is primarily aimed at protecting kids too young to understand the concept of trespassing, or who don't consider swimming alone to be dangerous.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Families Of Car Crash Victims Can Continue To Sue Snapchat Over Its 'Speed Filter'
Re: Re:
That's... utterly wrong. Traffic law has many instances where it says "another person's actions make them liable, not you."
On the post: Appeals Court Says Families Of Car Crash Victims Can Continue To Sue Snapchat Over Its 'Speed Filter'
Re:
Whether or not the reward actually exists, the perception created by the app is that the Speed Filter was connected to a rewards system in the app.
That's what this case hinges on. Even if the rewards don't exist, the design of the app may have implied there were. If so, that makes the company liable.
It's like if a McDonald's puts up signs saying "Drive as fast as you can to McDonalds to get the McDouble!" The sign doesn't say that you're getting a McDouble as a reward for speeding, but people might validly think they will get a free sandwich for speeding.
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re: Re: O RLY?
You still don't understand how this site works, do you?
See that little red flag after a comment? The one that says Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam? When enough people click that button, that's what hides the comment.
Which means enough people who read these comments think your opinions are worthless to "downvote" you until the comment is hidden. And yet, it's not deleted. Anyone who wants to see your comment can! It's one click away.
And yet, even after I explain this to you, I fully expect you to be back tomorrow making the exact same complaint, pretending you don't understand. I know the spam filter has been explained to you multiple times, but yet you still pretend to not understand how it works.
It's sad, really. You have no life, no self-confidence, and feel the only way to have any control over your life is to spew the same tired complaints onto a website you can't stand, just so you can see people react. As if that gives you some measure of control over them. (Hint: it doesn't.)
You need help. Please seek it.
On the post: Senator Marco Rubio: Speech I Disagree With Is Pollution
Anything that comes out of Marco Rubio is toxic waste, therefore he should be regulated.
On the post: James O'Keefe Sues Twitter For Defamation... For Shutting Down His Account
I mean, this is just bullshit on its very face. People have known about sockpuppet & meatpuppet accounts since the USENET days. That is what Twitter is talking about, and he clearly knows it. This is O'Keefe lying again.
On the post: Senator Bill Hagerty Believes Compelled Speech Is 'Liberty'; And Anyone Upset With Moderation Choices Should Be Able To Sue
Re: Re: Re: It's A Public Forum
How the hell would you "make" your living room a public forum? You don't get to make that designation. It's a legal designation, declared by the government. Are you saying you're going to donate your living room to the government?
On the post: Filming Cops Is The Best Accountability Tool: Officer Derek Chauvin Convicted Of Murder For Killing George Floyd
Re: Re:
If they had any smarts they'd stamp out these "bad apples" on their own. They are a threat to the whole system.
Anyone cop who tries to out bad cops gets punished by the police force. They find themselves assigned to the most dangerous beats, get denied backup, are harassed by fellow cops, and are told in no uncertain terms that they should just quit.
On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Cops Who Punched A Man Hanging From A Second Story Window And Tased Him When He Hit The Ground
Re:
Most likely scenario:
Peroza-Benitez landed on his feet, broke his leg, and pitched over. Officer White decided "that looks like he's running" and just fired his taser without even waiting to see if the guy hit the ground or not. Not excusable.
On the post: Law Firm Hoping To Add Legal Losses To Plaintiffs' Gambling Losses By Suing Google, Apple Over Casino Apps
Re: S230 not relevant
They're only acting as a payment processor if the gambling app is using Apple's/Google's payment system.
More likely, the app has a "enter your credit card number here" setting and is processing the transactions directly.
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Keep in mind that when Parler types say "1st Amendment," they're using that as a euphemism for "absolute freedom of speech." They thought they were getting a site where they could say anything they wanted without consequence, not realizing they were on a site that actually acknowledged it had to follow the legal definition of the 1st Amendment.
Next >>