"He's in a position to draft changes to the law if he doesn't like it..."
I think even he realises there's nowhere near enough support in Congress for that to be successful. And the ricicule he'd receive for trying would be ten times what it is now.
"Usual suspects like TechDirt are pulling out all the stops to make the American public believe that Antifa doesn't exist. It's all a myth, there is no such organization."
Who is the leader of this organisation?
Who are the other managers of this organisation?
Where is the headquarters of this organisation?
Where is the website of this organisation?
What are the stated goals of this organisation?
Words have meanings. Apparently you don't know the meaning of 'organisation'.
"you are permissive of corporations that build a free speech platform..."
There is literally no such thing. Platforms like Google, Facebook and Twitter grew out of basements and garages and eventually became corporations. By the time they did they had long grown out of any naive notion of unfettered, unmoderated speech.
"...and then engage in censorship based upon political bias."
You keep saying it, but you cannot prove it. It's getting a little sad.
"The editors SOUGHT OUT the opinion piece from Senator Cotton!"
That doesn't mean they should've published it once they read it, it just means they didn't realise what a clown Cotton is. I bet they do now.
"It's an opinion from a sitting United States senator..."
Which is very disturbing.
"...and a position very much supported by millions upon millions of constituents."
There are not "millions upon millions" of people who seriously think attacking protesters with the military isn't batshit crazy. Feel free to prove me wrong. Even is there really was, say, a million of them, that's still a tiny fraction of the population.
"The leader of our country is pushing a conspiracy theory from OANN..."
It's so much worse than that. The OANN article he got it from literally sounds like it was being read by a Russian bot. It could not be a better example of actual fake news.
I'm not sure what's worse; that he knows this and decided to spread it for nefarious reasons, or that he's mentally impaired enough to not realise it.
What did they bring the guns for then? Genuine question. Self-defense? (Against who?) Target practice? Of course not. As we keep being told, the whole point of the 2A is to be able to protect against government tyranny, which is the exact words used by protesters. The threat was clearly implied and not missed by anyone.
Your second paragraph goes off on some weird imagined direction irrelevant to what I said.
"now that Trump is actively trying to crush protests using the power of the state..."
This is literally what the ammosexuals claim they need all their guns for. Turns out is was actually only for when they couldn't go shopping or get a haircut. Who'da thunk it.
"Right now, the lives of White Americans aren’t under attack by the state."
That's not entirely true. The protests have been surprisingly diverse, which means those not normally directly affected by police violence are seeing and feeling it up close and personal. If anything good comes out of all this it might be a few more white folk realising how bad the situation really is.
"Mr. Masnick's evidence consists of "the accused parties say they're innocent"."
It's disturbing that so many people claiming that anti-conservative bias is a real thing don't seem to understand the fairly simply concept of burden of proof. You claim it, you prove it. It's not Mike's job to provide evidence of anything, it's yours.
The sheer volume of noise about this would suggest there's ample proof that shouldn't be hard to put into a convincing form. And yet... nothing. Just anecdotes, blind faith and hyper-partisan hackery.
"If they were interesting in knowing about it, the information had been readily available before he made it through primaries and election."
Elected officials don't get a free pass after elections, they get held to account every single day they're in office. The Trump administration clearly doesn't believe this should be the case, despite it being absolutely critical to a functioning democracy.
"Adding fact checks to his tweets is unwanted information."
Unwanted by you, I guess because the facts undermine your narrative.
"While the president is immune to charges for things he does in the office of the president..."
That's not at all true. There's a policy (not a law) not to bring charges against a sitting president, but once out of office there is nothing protecting him or her from being prosecuted for any illegal actions during that term. Whether or not anyone will have the gumption to actually do that is a different question.
I don't think you really understand what this term means, but the most important thing to remember is that if you have healthy competition in the ISP market then you have net neutrality by default. It shouldn't be something that even needs specific legislation. If your customers have somewhere better to take their business then you try much harder not to piss them off.
So unless your list of countries is also coincidentally a list of countries with low ISP competition then it's not very relevant.
It doesn't matter how rich they are or how fancy their car is, it's still not vandalism. They may not like you doing it but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.
On the post: Court Cites George Floyd Killing While Denying Immunity To Officers Who Shot A Black Man 22 Times As He Lay On The Ground
Re: Re: Re: Re: Now to turn the exception into the norm
"...I object to the comment in its entirety and the commentor."
"I'm a whiney, triggered bitch!"
"... somehow this person is almost always the first person to comment and never has anything interesting, creative, or intelligent to say..."
Commenters here clearly disagree with you.
"...and is somehow rewarded by TD moderators over and over again..."
You really don't understand how the comment voting system works do you.
"Cops are not jumpy or trigger happy, for a very long time they have been trained to shoot first and ask questions later..."
So you're telling us they are trained to be jumpy and trigger happy. Great argument skippy.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes
Re:
"He's in a position to draft changes to the law if he doesn't like it..."
I think even he realises there's nowhere near enough support in Congress for that to be successful. And the ricicule he'd receive for trying would be ten times what it is now.
On the post: Trump, DOJ Claim ANTIFA, Other Extremists Are Hijacking Protests. DOJ Filings Show No Link To Outside Groups.
Re: gaslighting
"Usual suspects like TechDirt are pulling out all the stops to make the American public believe that Antifa doesn't exist. It's all a myth, there is no such organization."
Who is the leader of this organisation?
Who are the other managers of this organisation?
Where is the headquarters of this organisation?
Where is the website of this organisation?
What are the stated goals of this organisation?
Words have meanings. Apparently you don't know the meaning of 'organisation'.
On the post: Behind Every Terrible Police Officer Is An Even Worse Police Union Rep
Re: Re:
"All unions seems to do the same thing. Protect the worst workers and encourage the good workers to do a worse job."
Even if that were true (it's not, it's a gross simplification), most 'bad' workers don't shoot or choke people to death, and those that do go to jail.
On the post: No, The Resignation Of NYT Editor James Bennet Does Not Mean American Newsrooms Have 'Turned Into College Campuses'
Re: Re: Re:
"Best not engage someone who treats one of the founding principles of Western Civilization so flippantly."
That you conflate this founding principle with a private company asking you to behave and follow their rules shows how little respect you have for it.
On the post: No, The Resignation Of NYT Editor James Bennet Does Not Mean American Newsrooms Have 'Turned Into College Campuses'
Re: Not Really
"you are permissive of corporations that build a free speech platform..."
There is literally no such thing. Platforms like Google, Facebook and Twitter grew out of basements and garages and eventually became corporations. By the time they did they had long grown out of any naive notion of unfettered, unmoderated speech.
"...and then engage in censorship based upon political bias."
You keep saying it, but you cannot prove it. It's getting a little sad.
"The editors SOUGHT OUT the opinion piece from Senator Cotton!"
That doesn't mean they should've published it once they read it, it just means they didn't realise what a clown Cotton is. I bet they do now.
"It's an opinion from a sitting United States senator..."
Which is very disturbing.
"...and a position very much supported by millions upon millions of constituents."
There are not "millions upon millions" of people who seriously think attacking protesters with the military isn't batshit crazy. Feel free to prove me wrong. Even is there really was, say, a million of them, that's still a tiny fraction of the population.
On the post: Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?
Re:
"As much as you think you deserve to commit violence against the system, if you do so, the system should respond to you in kind."
Wouldn't 'responding in kind' be them coming to burn your car? How do you not see homicide as a disproportionate reaction?
On the post: Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?
Re:
"The leader of our country is pushing a conspiracy theory from OANN..."
It's so much worse than that. The OANN article he got it from literally sounds like it was being read by a Russian bot. It could not be a better example of actual fake news.
I'm not sure what's worse; that he knows this and decided to spread it for nefarious reasons, or that he's mentally impaired enough to not realise it.
On the post: The Military Is Being Tapped To Handle Domestic Protests, Something It's Not Really Equipped To Handle
Re: Re: Re:
"Nobody was threatening lawmakers with guns."
What did they bring the guns for then? Genuine question. Self-defense? (Against who?) Target practice? Of course not. As we keep being told, the whole point of the 2A is to be able to protect against government tyranny, which is the exact words used by protesters. The threat was clearly implied and not missed by anyone.
Your second paragraph goes off on some weird imagined direction irrelevant to what I said.
On the post: The Military Is Being Tapped To Handle Domestic Protests, Something It's Not Really Equipped To Handle
Re:
"now that Trump is actively trying to crush protests using the power of the state..."
This is literally what the ammosexuals claim they need all their guns for. Turns out is was actually only for when they couldn't go shopping or get a haircut. Who'da thunk it.
On the post: New Study Finds No Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias In Facebook Moderation (If Anything, It's The Opposite)
Re:
"Right now, the lives of White Americans aren’t under attack by the state."
That's not entirely true. The protests have been surprisingly diverse, which means those not normally directly affected by police violence are seeing and feeling it up close and personal. If anything good comes out of all this it might be a few more white folk realising how bad the situation really is.
On the post: New Study Finds No Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias In Facebook Moderation (If Anything, It's The Opposite)
Re:
"Mr. Masnick's evidence consists of "the accused parties say they're innocent"."
It's disturbing that so many people claiming that anti-conservative bias is a real thing don't seem to understand the fairly simply concept of burden of proof. You claim it, you prove it. It's not Mike's job to provide evidence of anything, it's yours.
The sheer volume of noise about this would suggest there's ample proof that shouldn't be hard to put into a convincing form. And yet... nothing. Just anecdotes, blind faith and hyper-partisan hackery.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If they were interesting in knowing about it, the information had been readily available before he made it through primaries and election."
Elected officials don't get a free pass after elections, they get held to account every single day they're in office. The Trump administration clearly doesn't believe this should be the case, despite it being absolutely critical to a functioning democracy.
"Adding fact checks to his tweets is unwanted information."
Unwanted by you, I guess because the facts undermine your narrative.
On the post: The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media: (1) It's A Distraction (2) It's Legally Meaningless
Re: Re: Re: Proactive Supreme Court?
"...instead of waiting around till someone gets hammered."
That's literally what the SC is supposed to do.
On the post: When The Problem Isn't Twitter But President Trump
Re: Re: Re: Free speach is getting silly.
"While the president is immune to charges for things he does in the office of the president..."
That's not at all true. There's a policy (not a law) not to bring charges against a sitting president, but once out of office there is nothing protecting him or her from being prosecuted for any illegal actions during that term. Whether or not anyone will have the gumption to actually do that is a different question.
On the post: Judge Orders FCC To Hand Over Data On Fake Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re:
"...all have no net neutrality."
I don't think you really understand what this term means, but the most important thing to remember is that if you have healthy competition in the ISP market then you have net neutrality by default. It shouldn't be something that even needs specific legislation. If your customers have somewhere better to take their business then you try much harder not to piss them off.
So unless your list of countries is also coincidentally a list of countries with low ISP competition then it's not very relevant.
On the post: Another Federal Court Says Chalking Tires Is A Violation Of The Fourth Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't matter how rich they are or how fancy their car is, it's still not vandalism. They may not like you doing it but that doesn't change the meaning of the word.
On the post: Another Federal Court Says Chalking Tires Is A Violation Of The Fourth Amendment
Re: Tracking plates is still okay though
Agreed. Why spend a just few cents when you can achieve the same result by spending thousands of dollars on technology with a ripe history of abuse?
On the post: Another Federal Court Says Chalking Tires Is A Violation Of The Fourth Amendment
Re:
How is anyone silly enough to think it is?
On the post: Dealing With COVID-19 Requires Radical Transparency In Research Results; China Is Going In The Opposite Direction
Re: Re: Re: Barely masked antitrumpetry
You must be new here? Subjects covered are far broader than just "tech".
Next >>