This really illustrates the problem with capitalism in general as presently set up and the gap between its perception and its reality. Forget individual companies themselves, investment firms that shouldn't be too attached to any one company still see competition as a dirty word. Antitrust regulation needs to recognize that investors and the stock market are as interested in consolidation and monopolization as individual companies themselves.
Creating yet another site advertising to white-wingers that they're the "free speech" platform, then declaring the n-word more worthy of being censored than the s-word or h-e-double-hockey-sticks? Bold strategy Cotton, let's see how it works out for 'em.
It would be glorious if this passed and ended up blocking a merger involving a key Republican donor. But then, I'm sure Hawley would back off the instant he noticed Democrats were lining up to support the bill, including Fox's biggest punching bags.
Pretty simple: the only thing that matters is whether you say the right things about limiting abortion, protecting gun rights, and stopping "the gay agenda" (to get elected) and doing whatever monied interests tell you to (to make it that far). Actual competence at lawmaking doesn't matter and might actually be a liability because it gets in the way of the "doing whatever monied interests tell you to" part.
Sports, and other events lots of people want to watch at once like awards shows and breaking news, might be enough. Streaming still struggles with audiences beyond the order of a couple million, and it'll probably never do as well at it as the one-to-many linear TV architecture. But that probably only requires a handful of channels total, maybe enough to count on one hand.
Then there is the failure to report that Parler has been gelded anyway. It came back but not before the censorship of anti-American "moderation" was agreed to.
Are you saying that any and all moderation on any platform is "anti-American" "censorship"? That everyone has a right to post harassment and violent content and companies don't have a First Amendment right to decide they don't want to host such content or provide a platform for the people who post it because they feel removing such things would be better for their standing in the marketplace?
Then there is the idea that people gathering on January 6th were doing anything illegal.
I suppose all those reports and images of MAGAheads taking over the Capitol, forcing Congress to suspend the certification of the electoral college results, and Congresspeople fearing for their lives are all fake news, as are all the guns that have been confiscated from the "people gathering".
The government's case is falling apart day by day on the non-insurrection that had no arms and that the cops let in without any push back whatsoever.
That says more about the cops than about the "non-insurrection".
Remember, the suppression of American rights that you fervently support here in articles like this, will, come back to you, and your own rights will be suppressed.
Techdirt is a pretty libertarian site that often notes that trying to limit rights to the "big guys" or "bad guys" often ends up hurting the "little guys" or "good guys" more. If they think you don't have the right to violently storm the Capitol and disrupt the workings of government, and that advocating the violent overthrow of government isn't protected speech and isn't a slippery slope to suppressing things that actually are protected speech, maybe, just maybe, it's because you guys really are the baddies. Or at the least, that maybe Fox News and all the other outlets that tell you what you want to hear might not be "honest organizations".
If "the people of Tennessee" who elect these people were worried about anything other than culture warrioring, these people would never sniff the state capitol to begin with. They probably think "section 230" refers to their favored college football team's rival's stadium.
All you needed to know about how serious this "solution" was...
If it was so important to have a fourth major carrier, why engage in this cockamamie scheme to prop up Dish in that role instead of, you know, keeping the fourth carrier we already had?
Re: Re: Scamming YouTube creators in this way is more common
You are assuming the point isn't at least as much to put as many barriers as possible to making content outside of the reach of the legacy gatekeepers, to quash "unauthorized" use of IP, or just to flex their legal muscle (because an indefinitely drawn-out dispute generally favors the richer, more powerful party), than to actually claim the money generated by the content.
I've followed at least one content creator that hopped around from one site to another as each one went down and finally just gave up and went to YouTube. I think content creators by and large have decided they're stuck with YouTube, at least for the time being.
Its interesting, because in my (admittedly left-of-center) view, the headline implies that the car wash owner was probably just being racist and calling the cops over minor things or things that aren't crimes at all, and the cops finally put a stop to it. It actually makes the city look like the good guys, reinforced by the inflated number of calls, assuming you aren't firmly against the ability of government to take private property at all and aren't aware of Techdirt's general opposition to such things. A more "Techdirt-y" headline, and one closer to the point of the post, would be something like "City of Dallas: Is your business located in a den of crime? Stop it yourself - or we'll take your business."
The only way I can figure that "the Republicans aren't doing the same" is that they aren't doing the same this year, which might have something to do with having an incumbent they don't want to legitimize opposition to that in any case has no hope of unseating him. If anything, Democrats' stubborn insistence on substance means they haven't embraced sensationalism nearly as much as Republicans.
The old standard of "electability" - that the candidate that pivots to the center, has firm ideas and plans and a better grasp of the issues, and offends as few people as possible wins - turned out to be badly wrong. But since every candidate before Trump did that to some degree or another, that doesn't say much about our ability to evaluate electability; certainly the person you responded to has some idea of how to do it that would incorporate Trump. There are certainly some key clues: the more charismatic candidate has won every presidential election since at least 1980, and when half the electorate doesn't vote and those that do can vote for exactly one candidate in the general election, energizing and turning out your base while demonizing the other guy is a viable strategy.
Yes, you can paint lots of stories about how corporate controlled media without the fairness doctrine/massive tax cuts for the rich/lead paint/etc. could impact things, and I do think there's value in thinking through how that may play out in various situations (such as elections/media and politics/kids' brains), to assume that corporate media/unchecked wealth/lead paint will absolutely fool/impoverish/poison people and therefore we need to paternalistically "protect" the public from possibly being fooled/impoverished/poisoned, seems a bit premature. That could change over time. But we haven't yet seen any evidence of any significant long term effect from corporate media/unchecked wealth/lead paint, so maybe we shouldn't be reverting/changing a fundamental media/tax/housing law without actual evidence of the need.
I mean, I get and mostly agree with the point you're making, but history is full of developments we didn't sufficiently control until they already started having catastrophic consequences and it was too late to walk back on them. Maybe some of the ones I listed don't work very well, especially in this specific metaphor, but there are plenty of things where people say "we should have never allowed X, at least without knowing more about the consequences". If deepfakes do have the catastrophic consequences people envision, where will you be then? This is why fearmongering works: because there really are cases where seemingly innocuous changes can have far-reaching, permanent consequences.
They are just mustache twirling cartoon villians who want to destroy the internet for shits and giggles. Like Captain Planet villians who just want to destroy the environment for laughs and funnies.
If you weren't the original poster I would think you were making fun of him.
The most popular form of RCV leads to two-party domination as surely as FPTP in part because the results it produces can seem random and nonsensical once you start digging into them, and other forms have their own problems. Range voting is the best way to reform the problems with the system and might do a better job of it than you might think possible just by changing the voting system.
proceeds to expound on a wild conspiracy theory about "globalists" called "Them" using the trade war as cover to institute Their New World Order, and acknowledges that other commenters will call him a "kook"
On the post: Wall Street Stock Jocks Are Worried About A Modest Uptick In Broadband Competition
This really illustrates the problem with capitalism in general as presently set up and the gap between its perception and its reality. Forget individual companies themselves, investment firms that shouldn't be too attached to any one company still see competition as a dirty word. Antitrust regulation needs to recognize that investors and the stock market are as interested in consolidation and monopolization as individual companies themselves.
On the post: The Pillow Dude's 'Free Speech' Social Media Website Will Moderate 'Swear Words' Because Of Course It Will
Creating yet another site advertising to white-wingers that they're the "free speech" platform, then declaring the n-word more worthy of being censored than the s-word or h-e-double-hockey-sticks? Bold strategy Cotton, let's see how it works out for 'em.
On the post: Sens. Cruz, Hawley & Lee Show How To Take A Good Bill Idea And Make It Blatantly Unconstitutional
Re:
The only brain cells available to the entire Republican Party belong to their rich corporate overlords.
On the post: Sens. Cruz, Hawley & Lee Show How To Take A Good Bill Idea And Make It Blatantly Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re:
It would be glorious if this passed and ended up blocking a merger involving a key Republican donor. But then, I'm sure Hawley would back off the instant he noticed Democrats were lining up to support the bill, including Fox's biggest punching bags.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re:
Pretty simple: the only thing that matters is whether you say the right things about limiting abortion, protecting gun rights, and stopping "the gay agenda" (to get elected) and doing whatever monied interests tell you to (to make it that far). Actual competence at lawmaking doesn't matter and might actually be a liability because it gets in the way of the "doing whatever monied interests tell you to" part.
On the post: T-Mobile Kills Live TV Service Just A Few Months After Launch
Re: why does live TV still exist?
Sports, and other events lots of people want to watch at once like awards shows and breaking news, might be enough. Streaming still struggles with audiences beyond the order of a couple million, and it'll probably never do as well at it as the one-to-many linear TV architecture. But that probably only requires a handful of channels total, maybe enough to count on one hand.
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Re: Curious
Are you saying that any and all moderation on any platform is "anti-American" "censorship"? That everyone has a right to post harassment and violent content and companies don't have a First Amendment right to decide they don't want to host such content or provide a platform for the people who post it because they feel removing such things would be better for their standing in the marketplace?
I suppose all those reports and images of MAGAheads taking over the Capitol, forcing Congress to suspend the certification of the electoral college results, and Congresspeople fearing for their lives are all fake news, as are all the guns that have been confiscated from the "people gathering".
That says more about the cops than about the "non-insurrection".
Techdirt is a pretty libertarian site that often notes that trying to limit rights to the "big guys" or "bad guys" often ends up hurting the "little guys" or "good guys" more. If they think you don't have the right to violently storm the Capitol and disrupt the workings of government, and that advocating the violent overthrow of government isn't protected speech and isn't a slippery slope to suppressing things that actually are protected speech, maybe, just maybe, it's because you guys really are the baddies. Or at the least, that maybe Fox News and all the other outlets that tell you what you want to hear might not be "honest organizations".
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's projecting, because citations don't prove anything to him because they only prove what They want you to think.
On the post: Tennessee Lawmakers' Latest Attack On Section 230 Would Basically Ban All Government Investment
Re:
If "the people of Tennessee" who elect these people were worried about anything other than culture warrioring, these people would never sniff the state capitol to begin with. They probably think "section 230" refers to their favored college football team's rival's stadium.
On the post: The DOJ/FCC 'Fix' For The T-Mobile Merger Is Looking More And More Like Theater
All you needed to know about how serious this "solution" was...
If it was so important to have a fourth major carrier, why engage in this cockamamie scheme to prop up Dish in that role instead of, you know, keeping the fourth carrier we already had?
On the post: YouTube Streamer Hit With Demonetization Over Copyright Claims To Numbers '36' And '50'
Re: Re: Scamming YouTube creators in this way is more common
You are assuming the point isn't at least as much to put as many barriers as possible to making content outside of the reach of the legacy gatekeepers, to quash "unauthorized" use of IP, or just to flex their legal muscle (because an indefinitely drawn-out dispute generally favors the richer, more powerful party), than to actually claim the money generated by the content.
On the post: YouTube Streamer Hit With Demonetization Over Copyright Claims To Numbers '36' And '50'
Re:
I've followed at least one content creator that hopped around from one site to another as each one went down and finally just gave up and went to YouTube. I think content creators by and large have decided they're stuck with YouTube, at least for the time being.
On the post: City Of Dallas Shuts Down Business Of Man Who Called Cops Over 100 Times In 20 Months To Deal With Criminals Near His Car Wash
Re: 414 pages = 130 calls
Its interesting, because in my (admittedly left-of-center) view, the headline implies that the car wash owner was probably just being racist and calling the cops over minor things or things that aren't crimes at all, and the cops finally put a stop to it. It actually makes the city look like the good guys, reinforced by the inflated number of calls, assuming you aren't firmly against the ability of government to take private property at all and aren't aware of Techdirt's general opposition to such things. A more "Techdirt-y" headline, and one closer to the point of the post, would be something like "City of Dallas: Is your business located in a den of crime? Stop it yourself - or we'll take your business."
On the post: Chrome's Move To Stomp Out Third Party Cookies? Good For Privacy, Good For Google's Ad Business... Or Both?
But Mike, you're such a Google shill you should love this! /s
On the post: Yes, The DNC's Debate Format Sucks, And There's An Easy Fix
Re: Sensationalism Sells
The only way I can figure that "the Republicans aren't doing the same" is that they aren't doing the same this year, which might have something to do with having an incumbent they don't want to legitimize opposition to that in any case has no hope of unseating him. If anything, Democrats' stubborn insistence on substance means they haven't embraced sensationalism nearly as much as Republicans.
On the post: Yes, The DNC's Debate Format Sucks, And There's An Easy Fix
Re: Re: Sorry, wrong.
The old standard of "electability" - that the candidate that pivots to the center, has firm ideas and plans and a better grasp of the issues, and offends as few people as possible wins - turned out to be badly wrong. But since every candidate before Trump did that to some degree or another, that doesn't say much about our ability to evaluate electability; certainly the person you responded to has some idea of how to do it that would incorporate Trump. There are certainly some key clues: the more charismatic candidate has won every presidential election since at least 1980, and when half the electorate doesn't vote and those that do can vote for exactly one candidate in the general election, energizing and turning out your base while demonizing the other guy is a viable strategy.
On the post: Congress Now Creating A Moral Panic Around Deepfakes In Order To Change CDA 230
I mean, I get and mostly agree with the point you're making, but history is full of developments we didn't sufficiently control until they already started having catastrophic consequences and it was too late to walk back on them. Maybe some of the ones I listed don't work very well, especially in this specific metaphor, but there are plenty of things where people say "we should have never allowed X, at least without knowing more about the consequences". If deepfakes do have the catastrophic consequences people envision, where will you be then? This is why fearmongering works: because there really are cases where seemingly innocuous changes can have far-reaching, permanent consequences.
On the post: Congress Now Creating A Moral Panic Around Deepfakes In Order To Change CDA 230
Re: You're not understanding what I'm saying
If you weren't the original poster I would think you were making fun of him.
On the post: Congress Now Creating A Moral Panic Around Deepfakes In Order To Change CDA 230
Re: Re: Moral Panic...
The most popular form of RCV leads to two-party domination as surely as FPTP in part because the results it produces can seem random and nonsensical once you start digging into them, and other forms have their own problems. Range voting is the best way to reform the problems with the system and might do a better job of it than you might think possible just by changing the voting system.
On the post: Once Again, China Is About To Use The US's Obsession With 'Intellectual Property' Against Us
Re: Re: Years that end with 9
dismisses parent comment as "numerology nonsense"
proceeds to expound on a wild conspiracy theory about "globalists" called "Them" using the trade war as cover to institute Their New World Order, and acknowledges that other commenters will call him a "kook"
Next >>