It's only a matter of time before each of his donors (his "base") has to make a decision - "Do I want an asshole elected to the presidency again, or do I want to eat today?".
Given that upper limit, all we have to do is contribute the same amount per capita to the proper parties (running against #45 and his down-ticket stooges), and any tears spilled after the election will be from those who chose to eat a meal a day.
So why do people vote for his ilk? Simple. Keep that name in front of said people at all times. The best known method? Giant billboards along popular commuting routes. Trust me, this is the magic ticket, even more so than talking heads on the boob-tube.
Oh, and those corporations who donate to him because they think that capitalism can work without democracy? They're a drop in the bucket, considering that there are slightly more than 73 million $20-a-pop donors. You can be sure that the two groups get different "begging for more money" letters.
Also, you aren't talking to a fool, you're talking at them (and certainly not with them, either). Because they simply refuse to acknowledge your contributions to the discussion. They do indeed think that they already know it all, and there's no need to absorb anything from anyone in front of them, they've already heard it. Insofar as they are concerned, you are the fool for trying to espouse what they consider to be disinformation.
because they're not after "free speech", they're after a guaranteed audience, which nowhere in the constitution or in common sense have they ever been entitled to.
THIS!!
Whether the "blame" rests on platforms or users (and I think it's shared pretty equally between them), the fact remains easily visible for a sensible and rational person to see - if you act like an ass, you deserve to be treated like an ass. The fact that you can recognize that you are being treated like an ass says that you know you really could do better, yet you willingly and continually refuse to do so. That's the classic definition of doubling down.
Welcome, poster boy, welcome. Welcome to the world of recognition as an Asshole Extraordinaire, where your image is posted all over the world/internet as someone not to be trusted, not to be taken as sane, and not to be listened to except as sardonic entertainment, good only for someone to laugh at. Thanks for the cheap thrill. Now, get the fuck off my lawn!
No, it does indeed stand for Canadian Border Protection. You see, we are helping Canada to keep their citizens at home and not running around loose here in the USA. It seems that when they go back home, they grouse about the purchasing power of their money compared to ours, and other stuff that's important to them. Naturally, Toronto doesn't like that sort of unrest amongst the populace, I'm sure you understand.
What's that old saying? Oh yeah, it's something like:
Stupid thugs become jailbirds, smart thugs become cops.
Looks like these 200 or so guys just invented a new category, somewhere in between those two extremes. Let's call them ""personal-security-averse thugs".
Right there, Komaitis has left the reservation. I'm not speaking, as AC does just above, about the definition of infrastructure (though AC is definitely correct in his assertion), I'm speaking about the usual moronic conflation of speech (and moderation thereof) and association.
No, those companies (Cloudflare et al.) are not moderating content (speech), they are simply choosing with whom they may wish to associate - an entirely different matter altogether. Different enough such that 1A specifically calls out each of them separately - it leaves no doubt in anyone's mind what the Founders intended.
Look, if I invite you into my home for a discussion, and you start blathering about space lasers controlled by the Jews, I'm gonna ask you to leave in rather short order. Have I just committed "content moderation"? No, I have clearly and forthwithly make a choice regarding with whom I wish to associate. You, the frothing-at-the-mouth conspiracist, are completely free to spout your drivel elsewhere - I haven't denied you any of your rights, I've simply exercised one of mine.
Mike, I'm sorry, but after 3 green-background articles in a row, I perceive that these so-called experts are not yet ready for prime-time. They have not actually thought through all of the ramifications of what they're allegedly pondering before they make their proposals. And now we see the biggest snafu yet, the conflation I mention in the first paragraph. That's probably worse than "waaaah, make the internet work like I say it should work, waaaah!" These people need a guiding hand, a gentle nudge to look at themselves, and come to understand why simpletons like me can easily pick out the flaws in their proposal. And it ain't the 7+ decades under my belt, either.
Hopefully, you can provide that guidance, they need it.
Both K'Tetch and JB are pointing the finger in the somewhat wrong direction.
Instead of going after the campaign warchest, go after the actual congresscritter doing the performative grandstanding. He is not permitted to use campaign funds for personal purposes, so if the legislative body fines him for asshattery, then he has to pay out of his own pocket. Sure, he can whine to his under-100-IQ constituency that he was "robbed", and they can feel sorry for him by ponying up some more moolah, but it can't go to his campaign - it will have to go to a "Personal PAC", as #45 has demonstrated is not only possible, but very highly profitable.
But to make it all work, the "fine" has to be significant... a $10,000 slap on the wrist is only a couple of weeks of paycheck to them. Instead, make it something like half a year's worth of pay - $85K to $100K, a sting like that starts to get some attention.
Also, look closely at staffers. Some of them are directly responsible for this bullshit. Or at the very least, they could've warned the douche-bag that this wasn't going to fly. To protect themselves in the latter case, they'd need to file a report with the House Speaker/Senate Majority Leader - failing to do so infers complicity. Fining these jokers might help to put a stop to such outbursts of insanity.
Except that they don't, they generaly go for average + margin.
That should be "average MINUS margin". Reason being, that way the ISP can keep claiming that they need more government handouts in order to "expand to meet customer's needs".
Actually, yes, I do imagine that shit will happen, it does all the time.
My scenario won't apply universally across the board, but after all, the corporation itself doesn't contact the platform, a person from that corp initiates the contact. And people can be funny/weird when it comes to communications, I'm sure you'll agree. Reference my first line about what happens, and when.
Bluminidiotathal is lucky. I would have look him straight in the eye and said "No."
If he'd gone on a tear of a rant, I'd simply point out to him that "1A gives me the right to associate with whomever I might please, so long as I'm not coercing that other person to associate with me. If I choose to trust that associate is indeed who he/she says he/she is, that's my First Amendment right." I'd leave unstated the implied snark of "I dare you to pass a law that challenges 1A like that".
More: if Congress wishes to protect minors from online platforms like mine, I'd demand that Congress protect my platform from minors that lie about their age!
How the hell do we keep electing people who show us time and time again they are completely detached from reality, have no idea what they are doing, and often just make things worse to score points in some imaginary game in their head?
TAC, I'm a bit surprised at this question. You know as well as I do that the answer is money, pure and simple. Congress is the shining example of that old maxim: "He who has the gold gets to make the rules."
How do you verify age? Like seriously, how do you verify someone's age remotely?
Easy - you give them the test written by Al Lowe in the first episode of Leisure Suit Larry. (aka Leisure Suit Larry In The Land Of The Lounge Lizards.)
OTOH, if a minor lies about his/her age during signup, how is a given platform supposed to find out about it? He/she said they were 20 (or some other number above 18), why should the platform suspect that an investigation is in order, to see if they told the truth? And if they are found to be a minor, that leads to charges of invasion of the privacy of a minor, which is even worse than having done the same to an adult.
A formula for describing the problem: Expectations of Privacy plus Expectations of Trust, divided by various laws, does not equal a good time for the platform provider.
On the post: Trump Asks Court To Reinstate His Twitter Account ASAP
Re: Re: Speaking of losing...
Ya know.....
It's only a matter of time before each of his donors (his "base") has to make a decision - "Do I want an asshole elected to the presidency again, or do I want to eat today?".
Given that upper limit, all we have to do is contribute the same amount per capita to the proper parties (running against #45 and his down-ticket stooges), and any tears spilled after the election will be from those who chose to eat a meal a day.
So why do people vote for his ilk? Simple. Keep that name in front of said people at all times. The best known method? Giant billboards along popular commuting routes. Trust me, this is the magic ticket, even more so than talking heads on the boob-tube.
Oh, and those corporations who donate to him because they think that capitalism can work without democracy? They're a drop in the bucket, considering that there are slightly more than 73 million $20-a-pop donors. You can be sure that the two groups get different "begging for more money" letters.
On the post: Trump Asks Court To Reinstate His Twitter Account ASAP
The answer lies in another TD article today, as shown in a quote from CNN:
Given the two key words "credible" and "Facebook", I'm pretty sure that you can connect the dots, eh?
On the post: Accidentally Unsealed Document Shows Feds Are Using Reverse Warrants To Demand Info On Google Searches
Another Tell-tale sign....
Also, you aren't talking to a fool, you're talking at them (and certainly not with them, either). Because they simply refuse to acknowledge your contributions to the discussion. They do indeed think that they already know it all, and there's no need to absorb anything from anyone in front of them, they've already heard it. Insofar as they are concerned, you are the fool for trying to espouse what they consider to be disinformation.
On the post: AT&T Set Up And Paid For OAN Propaganda Network; Yet Everyone Wants To Scream About Facebook
Re:
No, no, it would be "Eat shit, Charles! And here's Mr. Nutterbutter who wants to give you a little something".
On the post: Facebook's Downtime And Why Protocols Are More Resilient Than Centralized Platforms
Re: Re: Re: Facebook - Conservative Bias?
THIS!!
Whether the "blame" rests on platforms or users (and I think it's shared pretty equally between them), the fact remains easily visible for a sensible and rational person to see - if you act like an ass, you deserve to be treated like an ass. The fact that you can recognize that you are being treated like an ass says that you know you really could do better, yet you willingly and continually refuse to do so. That's the classic definition of doubling down.
Welcome, poster boy, welcome. Welcome to the world of recognition as an Asshole Extraordinaire, where your image is posted all over the world/internet as someone not to be trusted, not to be taken as sane, and not to be listened to except as sardonic entertainment, good only for someone to laugh at. Thanks for the cheap thrill. Now, get the fuck off my lawn!
On the post: Investigation: CBP Targeted Journalists, Illegally Shared Info With Mexico, And Attempted To Cover It All Up
Re: Re: Acronym undefined
No, it does indeed stand for Canadian Border Protection. You see, we are helping Canada to keep their citizens at home and not running around loose here in the USA. It seems that when they go back home, they grouse about the purchasing power of their money compared to ours, and other stuff that's important to them. Naturally, Toronto doesn't like that sort of unrest amongst the populace, I'm sure you understand.
On the post: Hacked Data Exposes Law Enforcement Officers Who Joined Far-Right Oath Keepers Group
What's that old saying? Oh yeah, it's something like:
Looks like these 200 or so guys just invented a new category, somewhere in between those two extremes. Let's call them ""personal-security-averse thugs".
On the post: Hacked Data Exposes Law Enforcement Officers Who Joined Far-Right Oath Keepers Group
Re: ACAB
Yes indeed, A Case Of Beer is a fact!
On the post: Infrastructure And Content Moderation: Challenges And Opportunities
Right there, Komaitis has left the reservation. I'm not speaking, as AC does just above, about the definition of infrastructure (though AC is definitely correct in his assertion), I'm speaking about the usual moronic conflation of speech (and moderation thereof) and association.
No, those companies (Cloudflare et al.) are not moderating content (speech), they are simply choosing with whom they may wish to associate - an entirely different matter altogether. Different enough such that 1A specifically calls out each of them separately - it leaves no doubt in anyone's mind what the Founders intended.
Look, if I invite you into my home for a discussion, and you start blathering about space lasers controlled by the Jews, I'm gonna ask you to leave in rather short order. Have I just committed "content moderation"? No, I have clearly and forthwithly make a choice regarding with whom I wish to associate. You, the frothing-at-the-mouth conspiracist, are completely free to spout your drivel elsewhere - I haven't denied you any of your rights, I've simply exercised one of mine.
Mike, I'm sorry, but after 3 green-background articles in a row, I perceive that these so-called experts are not yet ready for prime-time. They have not actually thought through all of the ramifications of what they're allegedly pondering before they make their proposals. And now we see the biggest snafu yet, the conflation I mention in the first paragraph. That's probably worse than "waaaah, make the internet work like I say it should work, waaaah!" These people need a guiding hand, a gentle nudge to look at themselves, and come to understand why simpletons like me can easily pick out the flaws in their proposal. And it ain't the 7+ decades under my belt, either.
Hopefully, you can provide that guidance, they need it.
On the post: In Josh Hawley's World, People Should Be Able To Sue Facebook Both For Taking Down Stuff They Don't Like AND Leaving Up Stuff They Don't Like
Re:
Both K'Tetch and JB are pointing the finger in the somewhat wrong direction.
Instead of going after the campaign warchest, go after the actual congresscritter doing the performative grandstanding. He is not permitted to use campaign funds for personal purposes, so if the legislative body fines him for asshattery, then he has to pay out of his own pocket. Sure, he can whine to his under-100-IQ constituency that he was "robbed", and they can feel sorry for him by ponying up some more moolah, but it can't go to his campaign - it will have to go to a "Personal PAC", as #45 has demonstrated is not only possible, but very highly profitable.
But to make it all work, the "fine" has to be significant... a $10,000 slap on the wrist is only a couple of weeks of paycheck to them. Instead, make it something like half a year's worth of pay - $85K to $100K, a sting like that starts to get some attention.
Also, look closely at staffers. Some of them are directly responsible for this bullshit. Or at the very least, they could've warned the douche-bag that this wasn't going to fly. To protect themselves in the latter case, they'd need to file a report with the House Speaker/Senate Majority Leader - failing to do so infers complicity. Fining these jokers might help to put a stop to such outbursts of insanity.
On the post: South Korean ISP Somehow Thinks Netflix Owes It Money Because Squid Game Is Popular
Re: Re: A man that sells fishes..
CRAP! We need a "Delete Post" button.
That should've been "delivers the claimed bandwidth about as often as #45 tells the truth.
Crap.
On the post: South Korean ISP Somehow Thinks Netflix Owes It Money Because Squid Game Is Popular
Re: A man that sells fishes..
It's bad when the ISP fails to deliver the claimed bandwidth about as often as #45 tells the truth.
On the post: South Korean ISP Somehow Thinks Netflix Owes It Money Because Squid Game Is Popular
Re:
Slight error there:
That should be "average MINUS margin". Reason being, that way the ISP can keep claiming that they need more government handouts in order to "expand to meet customer's needs".
On the post: The SHOP SAFE Act Is A Terrible Bill That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces
Re: Re: I can't wait for this to backfire...
Actually, yes, I do imagine that shit will happen, it does all the time.
My scenario won't apply universally across the board, but after all, the corporation itself doesn't contact the platform, a person from that corp initiates the contact. And people can be funny/weird when it comes to communications, I'm sure you'll agree. Reference my first line about what happens, and when.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Thanks for the double First Place!
In case someone missed that thread, my post "On Second Thought" had a typo of major proportions. I followed it up with this:
Sorry, that first paragraph got cut short. (And I didn't see it in the Preview.)
... and thus the IRS will come up short in the Taxes From Internet Sales department.
On the post: Top Publishers Aim To Own The Entire Academic Research Publishing Stack; Here's How To Stop That Happening
Re: Re: Can't get into prior piece! But here 'tis.
Yes, blueballs went off the rails some time ago, but lately he seems to be trying to earn a Darwin Award.
On the post: Blumenthal's Finsta Debacle: It Remains Unacceptable That Our Politicians Are So Clueless About The Internet
Bluminidiotathal is lucky. I would have look him straight in the eye and said "No."
If he'd gone on a tear of a rant, I'd simply point out to him that "1A gives me the right to associate with whomever I might please, so long as I'm not coercing that other person to associate with me. If I choose to trust that associate is indeed who he/she says he/she is, that's my First Amendment right." I'd leave unstated the implied snark of "I dare you to pass a law that challenges 1A like that".
More: if Congress wishes to protect minors from online platforms like mine, I'd demand that Congress protect my platform from minors that lie about their age!
On the post: Blumenthal's Finsta Debacle: It Remains Unacceptable That Our Politicians Are So Clueless About The Internet
Re:
TAC, I'm a bit surprised at this question. You know as well as I do that the answer is money, pure and simple. Congress is the shining example of that old maxim: "He who has the gold gets to make the rules."
On the post: Blumenthal's Finsta Debacle: It Remains Unacceptable That Our Politicians Are So Clueless About The Internet
Re: Re:
Easy - you give them the test written by Al Lowe in the first episode of Leisure Suit Larry. (aka Leisure Suit Larry In The Land Of The Lounge Lizards.)
OTOH, if a minor lies about his/her age during signup, how is a given platform supposed to find out about it? He/she said they were 20 (or some other number above 18), why should the platform suspect that an investigation is in order, to see if they told the truth? And if they are found to be a minor, that leads to charges of invasion of the privacy of a minor, which is even worse than having done the same to an adult.
A formula for describing the problem: Expectations of Privacy plus Expectations of Trust, divided by various laws, does not equal a good time for the platform provider.
On the post: Against 'Content Moderation' And The Concentration Of Power
I'm sorry to have to say that there are so many inaccuracies in this article that I'm not at all going to even try to rebut them.
Yet another "the world should do it my way, waaah, waaaah" article. This is getting embarrassing.
Next >>