It is a source of never-ending entertainment that the very people most vehemently against 230 are by and large the same ones who would suffer the heaviest consequences were it ever repealed.
It might be selection bias in play, you have to be pretty stupid and/or an opportunistic leech to sign up as Trump's lawyer after all so it makes sense that their legal filings would reflect that.
'How surprising, we had no idea it would do that...'
If you do something and it has a particular result that wasn't spelled out it might be an accident.
If you do something after some random person tells you it will cause the 'unexpected' result the benefit of the doubt starts getting strained.
If you do something multiple times after having been warned multiple times by people/groups experienced in the relevant field that it will cause a particular 'unexpected' result then it's safe to assume that that result is not a bug, it's a feature.
Hertz: Because that's what using the company feels like
Hertz said it reports to police 0.014% of its 25 million annual rental transactions - or 3,500 customers.
Just... let that sink it. Being almost certainly very generous let's knock that down to 10% incorrect reports,with a full 90% actually valid reports filled to the police, that would still be 350 customers that the company is willing to throw to the wolves by negligently filing bogus claims of car theft, and if they can't be bothered to look up a report of a man accused of murder for several years the idea that they'd put more effort for those they accuse of much less becomes downright laughable.
Argues against 230 and platform moderation while having both baked into his own social media platform to an even heavier amount, I do believe he's just provided the perfect way to troll him on that platform in the form of merely pointing out what a raging hypocrite he is when it comes to 'free speech'.
It makes for an interesting long-term own-goal that so many people trying to defending being assholes of various flavors by claiming that anyone criticizing them are attacking them for 'political/anti-conservative reasons' results in those around them coming to the conclusion that 'conservative = asshole' and having that as the first thing they think of when they hear the word 'conservative' rather than anything of a more classically political bent.
On the contrary Rocky made a pretty solid case that Malone was indeed banned from Twitter due to his 'conservative opinions' given that texas republicans made crystal clear that anti-vax is on that list(alongside pro-terrorism and holocaust denial), so I'm sure Koby will be back soon to rightly boast about how he actually did provide an example of someone being banned for political reasons for once and confirm that that's what he meant when he pointed to Malone.
Oh how very sad/funny, you've been reduced to the 'I bet you can't do my homework for me' gambit. Sadly for you that's not how it works, the one who makes the claim is the one with the obligation to back it up, however if you disagree then I'm still not doing your work for you as I've got ironclad evidence that your claim is complete and utter garbage and to prove that I invite you to do a few searches for the evidence to see why.
Nah, you made the claim so you can go find a link, and make sure it has specific examples and not just someone whining about how 'conservative' content keeps getting pulled.
'I don't know how but you violated more rules than we have.'
Unless they really screwed up I've no doubt that Trump's account will be flagged as exempted from the moderation system(automatic and manual) from day 1, as there's no chance he'd make it even a week at most before violating a whole slew of the platform's rules.
I imagine it will crash and burn in short order for just the reason you noted but until that point it will undoubtedly be a font of entertainment and hypocrisy as the very family-unfriendly Trump cultists infesting it both blatantly violate the rules with little to no repercussions and defend it even as their own and people who just sign up to troll face the much more restrictive moderation rules the site has.
City and anyone else watching: 'The LA sherrif department is filled with a bunch of gang members.'
LA county sheriff Alex Villanueva: 'How dare you, just for that I'm going to send a blustery 'retract that or things will go badly for you' letter, a threat will clearly demonstrate that we are not a bunch of criminals in uniforms!'
Imagine that, it's almost as though someone involved might have considered what kind of people are likely to use the platform and are desperately trying to avoid any liability for hosting them by making use of the same legal protections that other platforms use...
I have absolutely no doubt that there will still be a legion of people who both attack 230 and other social media platforms for 'censorship' even as they cheer on Trump's new 'social media' platform for it's dedication towards 'real' free speech.
That actually makes perfect if warped sense as if his preferred guests are bullshit peddlers then it's understandable that he would be hostile to those that would debunk them, if only to ensure that the garbage pushers feel like he'll provide a welcoming space to make their pitches.
But if the war on cops was actually real, and happening in a very personal fashion, I wonder if they would feel motivated to actually do their jobs right, or just bet on the likelihood that lots of arrests and convictions surely means they had to have gotten the bad guy.
The former would require doing their jobs and acting professionally, the latter allows them to act like thugs to a lot of people indiscriminately.
Not a hard guess as to which they'd prefer to go with.
Wait a tic, I was under the impression that that question was literally impossible to answer given the response to it in the past when asked of others tends to be nothing but silence and yet you manged it in two sentences, that can't be right...
Two reasons for judges to care: either they actually do care about seeing justice done and/or they don't want to be made a fool of and potentially look like a sucker should a case they rule on that depended on junk 'science' hit the news.
'Our science is so amazing we don't dare bring it to court.'
If your 'science' is so weak that even you know it can't stand up to scrutiny to the point that you'll pull an 'expert witness' rather than have their claims examined it's not science, it's handwaving rubbish and deserves to be treated as such.
Most controversially, Agar advises analysts to tell judges that any effort to restrict their testimony to claims backed by scientific research is tantamount to asking them to commit perjury.
That is an incredibly damning tactic there, and should be enough to toss any testimony they might want to present as grossly unreliable. Telling an 'expert' that the only evidence they're allowed to present is that which has been shown to be scientifically sound in no way is forcing them to commit perjury, and if anything is preventing them from committing perjury, so that objection is telling in all the wrong ways of what they were going to do.
On the post: Even As Trump Relies On Section 230 For Truth Social, He's Claiming In Lawsuits That It's Unconstitutional
Re:
It is a source of never-ending entertainment that the very people most vehemently against 230 are by and large the same ones who would suffer the heaviest consequences were it ever repealed.
On the post: Even As Trump Relies On Section 230 For Truth Social, He's Claiming In Lawsuits That It's Unconstitutional
Re:
It might be selection bias in play, you have to be pretty stupid and/or an opportunistic leech to sign up as Trump's lawyer after all so it makes sense that their legal filings would reflect that.
On the post: The GOP Knows That The Dem's Antitrust Efforts Have A Content Moderation Trojan Horse; Why Don't The Dems?
'How surprising, we had no idea it would do that...'
If you do something and it has a particular result that wasn't spelled out it might be an accident.
If you do something after some random person tells you it will cause the 'unexpected' result the benefit of the doubt starts getting strained.
If you do something multiple times after having been warned multiple times by people/groups experienced in the relevant field that it will cause a particular 'unexpected' result then it's safe to assume that that result is not a bug, it's a feature.
On the post: Hertz Ordered To Tell Court How Many Thousands Of Renters It Falsely Accuses Of Theft Every Year
Hertz: Because that's what using the company feels like
Hertz said it reports to police 0.014% of its 25 million annual rental transactions - or 3,500 customers.
Just... let that sink it. Being almost certainly very generous let's knock that down to 10% incorrect reports,with a full 90% actually valid reports filled to the police, that would still be 350 customers that the company is willing to throw to the wolves by negligently filing bogus claims of car theft, and if they can't be bothered to look up a report of a man accused of murder for several years the idea that they'd put more effort for those they accuse of much less becomes downright laughable.
On the post: Even As Trump Relies On Section 230 For Truth Social, He's Claiming In Lawsuits That It's Unconstitutional
Ah gross hypocrisy, we meet again
Argues against 230 and platform moderation while having both baked into his own social media platform to an even heavier amount, I do believe he's just provided the perfect way to troll him on that platform in the form of merely pointing out what a raging hypocrite he is when it comes to 'free speech'.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re:
Your comment is a little confusing, do you mean that Mastadon disabled federation capability or the Trump Social team did when they copied the code?
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Well, if you insist that's what it means...
It makes for an interesting long-term own-goal that so many people trying to defending being assholes of various flavors by claiming that anyone criticizing them are attacking them for 'political/anti-conservative reasons' results in those around them coming to the conclusion that 'conservative = asshole' and having that as the first thing they think of when they hear the word 'conservative' rather than anything of a more classically political bent.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the contrary Rocky made a pretty solid case that Malone was indeed banned from Twitter due to his 'conservative opinions' given that texas republicans made crystal clear that anti-vax is on that list(alongside pro-terrorism and holocaust denial), so I'm sure Koby will be back soon to rightly boast about how he actually did provide an example of someone being banned for political reasons for once and confirm that that's what he meant when he pointed to Malone.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh how very sad/funny, you've been reduced to the 'I bet you can't do my homework for me' gambit. Sadly for you that's not how it works, the one who makes the claim is the one with the obligation to back it up, however if you disagree then I'm still not doing your work for you as I've got ironclad evidence that your claim is complete and utter garbage and to prove that I invite you to do a few searches for the evidence to see why.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re: Re: Re:
Nah, you made the claim so you can go find a link, and make sure it has specific examples and not just someone whining about how 'conservative' content keeps getting pulled.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
'I don't know how but you violated more rules than we have.'
Unless they really screwed up I've no doubt that Trump's account will be flagged as exempted from the moderation system(automatic and manual) from day 1, as there's no chance he'd make it even a week at most before violating a whole slew of the platform's rules.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Oh look, time for you to make yourself scarce again
as opposed to banning speech based on political difference.
Which speech is being banned for 'political difference' and as always be specific.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re:
I imagine it will crash and burn in short order for just the reason you noted but until that point it will undoubtedly be a font of entertainment and hypocrisy as the very family-unfriendly Trump cultists infesting it both blatantly violate the rules with little to no repercussions and defend it even as their own and people who just sign up to troll face the much more restrictive moderation rules the site has.
On the post: LA Sheriff Threatens To 'Subject' City Council To 'Defamation Law' If They Won't Stop Calling His Deputies 'Gang Members'
That'll teach 'em
City and anyone else watching: 'The LA sherrif department is filled with a bunch of gang members.'
LA county sheriff Alex Villanueva: 'How dare you, just for that I'm going to send a blustery 'retract that or things will go badly for you' letter, a threat will clearly demonstrate that we are not a bunch of criminals in uniforms!'
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
'It's only okay when we use it!'
Imagine that, it's almost as though someone involved might have considered what kind of people are likely to use the platform and are desperately trying to avoid any liability for hosting them by making use of the same legal protections that other platforms use...
I have absolutely no doubt that there will still be a legion of people who both attack 230 and other social media platforms for 'censorship' even as they cheer on Trump's new 'social media' platform for it's dedication towards 'real' free speech.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Re: Re: Re:
That actually makes perfect if warped sense as if his preferred guests are bullshit peddlers then it's understandable that he would be hostile to those that would debunk them, if only to ensure that the garbage pushers feel like he'll provide a welcoming space to make their pitches.
On the post: Letter From High-Ranking FBI Lawyer Tells Prosecutors How To Avoid Court Scrutiny Of Firearms Analysis Junk Science
Re: Cop killer
But if the war on cops was actually real, and happening in a very personal fashion, I wonder if they would feel motivated to actually do their jobs right, or just bet on the likelihood that lots of arrests and convictions surely means they had to have gotten the bad guy.
The former would require doing their jobs and acting professionally, the latter allows them to act like thugs to a lot of people indiscriminately.
Not a hard guess as to which they'd prefer to go with.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Re:
Wait a tic, I was under the impression that that question was literally impossible to answer given the response to it in the past when asked of others tends to be nothing but silence and yet you manged it in two sentences, that can't be right...
On the post: Letter From High-Ranking FBI Lawyer Tells Prosecutors How To Avoid Court Scrutiny Of Firearms Analysis Junk Science
To avoid looking like chumps
Two reasons for judges to care: either they actually do care about seeing justice done and/or they don't want to be made a fool of and potentially look like a sucker should a case they rule on that depended on junk 'science' hit the news.
On the post: Letter From High-Ranking FBI Lawyer Tells Prosecutors How To Avoid Court Scrutiny Of Firearms Analysis Junk Science
'Our science is so amazing we don't dare bring it to court.'
If your 'science' is so weak that even you know it can't stand up to scrutiny to the point that you'll pull an 'expert witness' rather than have their claims examined it's not science, it's handwaving rubbish and deserves to be treated as such.
Most controversially, Agar advises analysts to tell judges that any effort to restrict their testimony to claims backed by scientific research is tantamount to asking them to commit perjury.
That is an incredibly damning tactic there, and should be enough to toss any testimony they might want to present as grossly unreliable. Telling an 'expert' that the only evidence they're allowed to present is that which has been shown to be scientifically sound in no way is forcing them to commit perjury, and if anything is preventing them from committing perjury, so that objection is telling in all the wrong ways of what they were going to do.
Next >>