Frankly, some of the best discussion on these posts involves slapping Koby and other trolls down. It encourages the rational actors to develop their arguments, improving the logic, the language, and the metaphors used. Even when we will never change Koby's mind, they have been invaluable at finding both genuine errors or bad faith nitpicks that would fold my argument in a real discussion.
I take what I learn arguing with the troll, and use it to educate my social circle through rational discussion because Koby's heavy use of ad hominim and the fallacy fallacy have improved my positions on numerous topics.
Listing 127.0.0.1 as containing an infring should be expressly be a Prima facie admission that no good faith inquiry was made. Not evidence, its an admission of guilt that they did so little inquiry they didn't even exclude their own "legally obtained material" used as refrence.
As i said, you aren’t wrong. Part of the issue is, in your original post, you use investors interchangibly with shareholders, those who trade ownership of a public company but don’t actually put any money into the company, at the beginning, but discuss Venture capitalists, those who invest in private companies and thereby directly fund them, as investors as well. These are two different groups and using the same term for them furthers the confusion that already exists thanks to the ignorance of journalists, hollywood, and the general public and is exacerbated by the flood of retail investors in the last decade and the imprecision of english and the word invest.
You aren't really wrong, but I feel the need to note that, generally, investors is the term to use for funders of a private company. Generally, for a company that has been public for longer than I've been alive, you describe them as shareholders. Its a different level of control and a different dynamic.
Your use of the pronoun "they", the use of an incomplete sentence, and the general lack of tonal cues inherent to the written word make your intended meaning pretty indecipherable.
Im not sure the contours of" digital asset" cover any and all files. Discussions by lawyers suggest that in the text of the bill or a standard legal definition don't cover just any digital file. But that is definitely part of my concern.
The joke starts with a hypocritical inconsistency, two women eating a a restaurant they dislike.
It then compares this to Techdirt's reactions to first the IOC's corruption and than the American broadcast of the Olympics.
It then, as a punchline, links to Lisa simpson singing "just don't watch" to moral puritans upset over the Treehouse of Horror.
Ignoring if it is funny, as that is subjective, this is a fine sentiment to tell your drinking buddy who kept complaining. I mean, I highlighted that loved ones who could go and see athletes compete in person in previous games need this coverage to watch the event, but lets ignore that. It is not an appropriate comparison to level at an American news opinion site that focuses on Tech issues reporting on the Endemic Tech issues facing the American broadcasts and criticizing the American broadcaster.
It has nothing to do with a personal desire to watch the olympics. The treehouse of horror episode was commenting that those concerned about the content of the episode should not watch. Basic content warning, really. And even extended to not watching content because you dislike the back of house business, it doesn't apply to journalism, nor discussions of policy, which is what Techdirt's articles are.
Its a troll move. Its how trolls who wanted to shut down discussion of Ubisoft or Activision Blizzard's horrible work environments have done so for so long because they just want the games. Individuals who don't like it can just not play, right? Well, The recent news over these companies has been known in games journalism, in broad strokes, for years. Jim Stephanie Sterling has been going on about it for years, with a constant drumbeat of "than you don't play" from the trolls, whose goal is to stop discussion of the issue, and make sure few people know that the controversy exists. Otherwise legal action might mean they cant play a game. Or worse, you might have to question if a video game is worth the suffering it took to create.
And thats the message you send. Journalists should stop reporting on the olympics. And the consequence is you don't have to read about how bad your olympics are at every level.
The joke relied on an appeal to hypocrisy. It relied on misrepresenting Techdirt's position. "No hypocrisy intended" doesn't convince me you aren't trolling, particularly as you aren't apologizing.
Not only is your point confusing, your premise is false.
"So the amendment wants to make sure the people running crypto miners don't pay anything, you know, the people causing the most ongoing environmental damage"
Bolded for emphasis. The amendment exempts miners from broker reporting requirements. Because a miner isn't a broker. Miners do not generate or have the information the bill is looking for. The bill would not require them to report how many coins they mined (what you want), they would be reporting on the transactions they added to the ledger (that would be how they facilitated the transfer of a digital asset). Meaning, examining each transaction to fill out paperwork about it. Not a typical desire, and not solving the issue you claim to be concerned about. Because its a smokescreen for your valid concerns about the environmental impact. Unfortunately, in the capitalist system its really hard to say "you are using too much electricity" and force change in the behavior so long as its paid for.
Tax liability only occurs when a trade happens. The amendment assumes that eventually, a coin will have to be traded with a broker. The amendment might be making bad assumptions about what percentage of the volume of trades happen through brokers, but I rather expect the assumption is that, eventually, the point of bitcoin is to cash out. That is much more difficult without a broker, and because the ledger allows for traceability, a coin with high cost basis, low profit, and/or spotty transaction history can see heavy scrutiny for taxes. As a tax professional I have seen the current reporting requirements, and I have seen people get hit by this back tracing in the past year when someone reported bitcoin purchases on their taxes, and it turned out the seller hadn't. Under new rules that would be much more likely.
Then of course, like weed, crypto miners can be spotted by the huge energy bill and heat generated. And if authorities aren't seeing the owners reported trading with that crypto, thats now the basis of an investigation.
This amendment does nothing to prevent collection of income taxes from miners, which you claimed. It will make crypto tax cheats more vulnerable, not less. This bill wan't going to ban mining or regulate mining energy usage. Those are hard to pass, hard to draft constitutionally, and hard to enforce. This improves tools to identify and punish cheats using brokers like they did with money laundering and banks as a means of improving revenue collection.
There are plenty of criticisms, such as that these rules are meaningless without enforcement and strong spending on investigations to find the cheats. But your criticism while understandable definitely coming from the right place, completely miscategorizes how the pay-for provision works, what the amendment would do, and tries to kitchen sink a legally complicated issue into an already contentious bill that is barely holding support together as-is, which is almost always a bad idea.
“It says any person who is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person – which can mean anything. If I transfer bitcoin for you, then it can mean I become a broker.”
The issue is the language is super broad. We don't actually know what the courts will make of it. It might be that the contents of the block chain that federated sites like Mastodon use would be considered digital assets. From the discussions, it doesn't seem to be a large consideration right now, "Asset" might have a well established definition in law that there is no ambiguity.
But even if Mastodon or similar are not under threat right now, further development might trip them up without the law being clarified now.
That said, you are right to not trust the administration. None of us should. If it is not in the text of the law, the next administration wont care about the promises Biden made even if Biden really means it. Thats as far as you needed to go. But since you went further, I will address your facts.
I don't remember promises that the ACA wouldn't be a tax, but the ACA did have a number of provisions intended to prevent tax increases to pay for the bill, with the promise that because of these provisions we wouldn't need to increase taxes to pay for it. Slight difference. The ACA non-coverage tax doesn't pay for the increased spending, so id call that a promise kept. (I'd also contest the courtroom arguments as 'begging', but that's not a factual claim so I won't fight that battle).
There are much better comparisons you could make that better match the fact pattern, like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan", a horribly phrased promise that, on its face, was obviously not going to survive in the face of the draft legislation as it already existed.
Worse there are better, more recent non-partisan examples that don't go out of their way to suggest the issue is only seen from Democrat administrations: "FOSTA/SESTA won't affect legal content" being a common example that keeps getting highlighted by Techdirt as being a blind spot on every side in the government.
You can't on Facebook. Enter submits. Same with twitter. But that doesn't matter, because you didn't indicate you were trying to make a new line. You discussed the enter key behavior from the "post title". Techdirt doesn't have a field that uses that label in the UI. But I can assume you mean the "Subject" box. The subject box is....a different text box than the body. That field would be properly limited to a single line with word wrap enabled. I had assumed you were trying to navigate to the main comment text box, which would be a move to a completely different field, not a new line, because that is what you described.
And I know you can't be talking about new lines in the body section of the comments. Because in the body section, where new lines are both expected and normal, enter works as you describe. So your issue is not a text box not creating a new line. Your issue is that you are trying to move from the Subject field to the Body field with enter, which is navigating a form. The use of enter for this purpose hasn't been in vogue for decades.
I don't see that the author ever expressed that they want more Olympics. At best they want more Olympics coverage, but even that requires assuming you have correctly identified subtextual motives. That said:
Tech dirt Article: The IOC is corrupt.
Techdirt Article: Comcast/NBC is greedy and incompetent, and thanks to IOC's corruption, they are apathetic to systemic failures in Comcast's coverage of the Olypmics caused by the greed and incompetence. This is impacting the ability of fans to view these events.
FTFY.
These are not contradictory. You can recognize that the IOC is corrupt and still point out that NBC is corrupt. You can recognize that the IOC is corrupt and still want to support loved ones (no one but athletes are allowed in Tokyo, unlike previous olympics). You can recognize the IOC is corrupt and want to watch athletic events rarely broadcast widely.
Or if you are a news opinion site like techdirt, you might both report and comment on the IOC corruption and then comment that a major national broadcaster is incompitent at displaying the event put on by the corrupt organization. In fact, those things might be related.
So as Samual Abrams asked: What is you point? You've suggested a hypocracy, but I struggle to formulate how Techdirt is being inconsistent.
Highly disagree. The type of deliberate attack you describe seems intended to generate a nuclear retaliation. Thats what you imply by the statement “the window for retaliation or defense is closing fast”. If we get data that a sudden incoming attack so overwhelming that we had to commit before verifying, or would provoke a nuclear response. If a near peer nuclear armed nation intends to start a nuclear war, they’ll just launch.
Your arguement might be that a third party would be the attacker, but still it would not be a kinetic war. We’d be a cinder before we ever got to boots on the ground.
If someone wants to appear in an American courthouse and file a lawsuit, I think they should be able to do so.
You are the one who brought up that certain speech violates the first amendment. I'm just pointing out that under your standard, this material is not barred from the platform.
But social media companies should be forced through legislation to provide a reason for removing content, and American citizens ought to be able to challenge it in court.
As Techdirt has repeatedly said, Facebook should be more transparent. But using the courts violates the first amendment.
And although I wouldn't reccomend it, just try editing a video of Obama getting beheaded and watch how fast you get a tap on the shoulder from the secret service
Interestingly, you didn't just suggest a photo, for a direct comparison. No, I had to do a video edit, which implies more work, time, effort. That tends to imply I am more serious than a cheap photoshop. But I'd also note Obama's head was blown up in Kingsman without much fanfare.
In the modern era, the secret service has to actually assess threats, rather than hammer each one. I know for a fact that not all people claiming a desire for trump to die or to kill trump themselves saw the Secret service. If I put together that video id be looked at because creating that video suggests a deeper level of motivation than shitposting by suggesting trump might get arrested and killed. as Techdirt as repeatedly noted: Context is critical in moderation.
Just as a random example, an image of trump in a orange prison jumpsuit being executed by a 'militant' is claimed to be a death threat. But as political commentary, it is more reasonably assumed to be a prediction or wish of how events will play out, with no impetus from the poster.
A death threat is only unprotected by the first amendment if it is a direct threat and the poster or a direct associate could reasonably be assumed to be capable, or it is otherwise considered harassment. A Photo of trump in jail being killed by militants is not a direct threat, and any reasonable viewer would understand that. Your attempt at a legal position is kinda shit.
Gettr's policy was to not moderate. But even assuming they made parlor's promise to only moderate material not protected by the first amendment...
If folks would like to espouse political beliefs, I don't have a problem with that. However, the first amendment doesn't protect death threats or foreigners.
Interesting. So free speech, but only for americans then? Getter isn't a free speech platform, but an american speech platform? Nice shifting of the goalposts.
Worse, you haven't actually shown that anything is from a foreigner or a violent threat as established by 1A precident. Your quote describes posts that might be quite legal under the first amendment (depending on exact wording and context) and could easily be posted by US citizens. You'd think a free speech advocate, particularly a limited US-only free speech advocate, would know that a lot more evidence would be required to establish a breach of first amendment protections.
Facebook cites the same policies Gettr does. Facebook has rules they point to as well. You just don't like those rules. Then again, as I highlighted, im not sure what rules you think are okay.
I mean, a supercomputer in your pocket and social media allow you to be more aware of all the worlds issues. I fully believe the data they have, they just don't spend any time thinking at all about why. Its the classic "view from nowhere" problem applied to science. Surface assessment of factual data, surface conclusion, no real thought into what it is that kids see on social media.
The scientists should know social media tends to discuss and link to reporting on current events. They should know that since the 2008 financial collapse, exacerbated in the last 4 years, and rocket-strapped after the 2020 pandemic and ongoing economic and health crisis, there has been a steadily growing discontent with the economic structures in the developed world. Social media doesn't just allow harassment, it allows those discussions.
A constant refrain from mental health professionals is the dispair my generation, millenials, experience in the face of major 2 economic disasters in my adult lifetime, evidence that policy is focusing recovery to maintain the cash flows of the rich stunting recovery for anyone else, a housing market impacted by a few hording excess housing for profit driving costs so high that home ownership is impractical and holds less value than for previous generations, and wages that have not appreciably increased in our lifetime as costs go up all around us. We are sharing that with others on social media. We explain this. And it causes further dispair.
But thats not because of social media. Its because of the socio-economic realities of modern life. Social Media justs allows those realities to be expressed to a wider audiance.
I'd have loved to read the articles on how the radio was causing depression because it had someone read the news.
The online solution is currently to use Peacock, NBC's streaming platform. I don't know if the Olympics are free, but Peacock premium can be accessed without a cable package as a standalone service
YOu suggestions are the same suggestions offered 50 years ago, to no effect. Most people won't explain the solutions when you offer suggestions like that because you don't know enough about the history to know that your suggestsions have been the failed alternatives to solutions that have been proposed for 50 years. Seriously, government investigations and civil rights groups have made the same suggestions for the last 50 years after every big anti-police brutality protest. They have been ignored. Someone with a genuine interest in reform of the police will know the solutions.
But just for you, Actual suggestions? Move away from the military model, and toward community-based policing.
Strip qualified immunity, replace it with indemnification, and all use of force needs to investigated by a civilian body outside normal or retired law enforcement
Police rarely get notice of violence in progress, and even more rarely can intercede while it is ongoing, and even more rarely is a gun the only option. Stop giving patrol officers guns. Period.
End drug busts. They are dangerous. They are inefficient. They cause more collateral damage then they solve.
Notably, most of these require rebuilding the charters of some departments, and removing most of the senior workforce and the existing union to achieve, as they have been the barriers to these solutions in the past.
These reforms, and others, can be implemented. Camden, New Jersey did it. Disbanded its police (knocked it down) and built a new one. It reduced crime. All it took was getting rid of the existing police force and implementing community based policing.
On the post: Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Frankly, some of the best discussion on these posts involves slapping Koby and other trolls down. It encourages the rational actors to develop their arguments, improving the logic, the language, and the metaphors used. Even when we will never change Koby's mind, they have been invaluable at finding both genuine errors or bad faith nitpicks that would fold my argument in a real discussion.
I take what I learn arguing with the troll, and use it to educate my social circle through rational discussion because Koby's heavy use of ad hominim and the fallacy fallacy have improved my positions on numerous topics.
On the post: It Happened Again: Antipiracy Outfit Asks Google To Delist 127.0.0.1 On Behalf Of Ukrainian TV Station
Re:
Listing 127.0.0.1 as containing an infring should be expressly be a Prima facie admission that no good faith inquiry was made. Not evidence, its an admission of guilt that they did so little inquiry they didn't even exclude their own "legally obtained material" used as refrence.
On the post: US Press Softsells The Real Scope Of AT&T's Merger Incompetence, Ensuring It Will Happen Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: a fun site to check out
As i said, you aren’t wrong. Part of the issue is, in your original post, you use investors interchangibly with shareholders, those who trade ownership of a public company but don’t actually put any money into the company, at the beginning, but discuss Venture capitalists, those who invest in private companies and thereby directly fund them, as investors as well. These are two different groups and using the same term for them furthers the confusion that already exists thanks to the ignorance of journalists, hollywood, and the general public and is exacerbated by the flood of retail investors in the last decade and the imprecision of english and the word invest.
On the post: US Press Softsells The Real Scope Of AT&T's Merger Incompetence, Ensuring It Will Happen Again
Re: a fun site to check out
You aren't really wrong, but I feel the need to note that, generally, investors is the term to use for funders of a private company. Generally, for a company that has been public for longer than I've been alive, you describe them as shareholders. Its a different level of control and a different dynamic.
On the post: US Press Softsells The Real Scope Of AT&T's Merger Incompetence, Ensuring It Will Happen Again
Re: ummmmm
Your use of the pronoun "they", the use of an incomplete sentence, and the general lack of tonal cues inherent to the written word make your intended meaning pretty indecipherable.
On the post: You Can't Be Tough On Big Tech While Killing Off Alternatives To It
Re: Re:
Im not sure the contours of" digital asset" cover any and all files. Discussions by lawyers suggest that in the text of the bill or a standard legal definition don't cover just any digital file. But that is definitely part of my concern.
On the post: You Can't Be Tough On Big Tech While Killing Off Alternatives To It
Re: Re:
I accidentally used italics, not Bold, which doesn't show up.
the part intended to emphasize was "make sure the people running crypto miners don't pay anything"
On the post: Despite 20 Years Of Experience, Comcast/NBC Still Sucks At Olympics Coverage
Re: Re: Re:
You wrote a joke then. Lets assess, shall we?
The joke starts with a hypocritical inconsistency, two women eating a a restaurant they dislike.
It then compares this to Techdirt's reactions to first the IOC's corruption and than the American broadcast of the Olympics.
It then, as a punchline, links to Lisa simpson singing "just don't watch" to moral puritans upset over the Treehouse of Horror.
Ignoring if it is funny, as that is subjective, this is a fine sentiment to tell your drinking buddy who kept complaining. I mean, I highlighted that loved ones who could go and see athletes compete in person in previous games need this coverage to watch the event, but lets ignore that. It is not an appropriate comparison to level at an American news opinion site that focuses on Tech issues reporting on the Endemic Tech issues facing the American broadcasts and criticizing the American broadcaster.
It has nothing to do with a personal desire to watch the olympics. The treehouse of horror episode was commenting that those concerned about the content of the episode should not watch. Basic content warning, really. And even extended to not watching content because you dislike the back of house business, it doesn't apply to journalism, nor discussions of policy, which is what Techdirt's articles are.
Its a troll move. Its how trolls who wanted to shut down discussion of Ubisoft or Activision Blizzard's horrible work environments have done so for so long because they just want the games. Individuals who don't like it can just not play, right? Well, The recent news over these companies has been known in games journalism, in broad strokes, for years. Jim Stephanie Sterling has been going on about it for years, with a constant drumbeat of "than you don't play" from the trolls, whose goal is to stop discussion of the issue, and make sure few people know that the controversy exists. Otherwise legal action might mean they cant play a game. Or worse, you might have to question if a video game is worth the suffering it took to create.
And thats the message you send. Journalists should stop reporting on the olympics. And the consequence is you don't have to read about how bad your olympics are at every level.
The joke relied on an appeal to hypocrisy. It relied on misrepresenting Techdirt's position. "No hypocrisy intended" doesn't convince me you aren't trolling, particularly as you aren't apologizing.
On the post: You Can't Be Tough On Big Tech While Killing Off Alternatives To It
Re:
Not only is your point confusing, your premise is false.
Bolded for emphasis. The amendment exempts miners from broker reporting requirements. Because a miner isn't a broker. Miners do not generate or have the information the bill is looking for. The bill would not require them to report how many coins they mined (what you want), they would be reporting on the transactions they added to the ledger (that would be how they facilitated the transfer of a digital asset). Meaning, examining each transaction to fill out paperwork about it. Not a typical desire, and not solving the issue you claim to be concerned about. Because its a smokescreen for your valid concerns about the environmental impact. Unfortunately, in the capitalist system its really hard to say "you are using too much electricity" and force change in the behavior so long as its paid for.
Tax liability only occurs when a trade happens. The amendment assumes that eventually, a coin will have to be traded with a broker. The amendment might be making bad assumptions about what percentage of the volume of trades happen through brokers, but I rather expect the assumption is that, eventually, the point of bitcoin is to cash out. That is much more difficult without a broker, and because the ledger allows for traceability, a coin with high cost basis, low profit, and/or spotty transaction history can see heavy scrutiny for taxes. As a tax professional I have seen the current reporting requirements, and I have seen people get hit by this back tracing in the past year when someone reported bitcoin purchases on their taxes, and it turned out the seller hadn't. Under new rules that would be much more likely.
Then of course, like weed, crypto miners can be spotted by the huge energy bill and heat generated. And if authorities aren't seeing the owners reported trading with that crypto, thats now the basis of an investigation.
This amendment does nothing to prevent collection of income taxes from miners, which you claimed. It will make crypto tax cheats more vulnerable, not less. This bill wan't going to ban mining or regulate mining energy usage. Those are hard to pass, hard to draft constitutionally, and hard to enforce. This improves tools to identify and punish cheats using brokers like they did with money laundering and banks as a means of improving revenue collection.
There are plenty of criticisms, such as that these rules are meaningless without enforcement and strong spending on investigations to find the cheats. But your criticism while understandable definitely coming from the right place, completely miscategorizes how the pay-for provision works, what the amendment would do, and tries to kitchen sink a legally complicated issue into an already contentious bill that is barely holding support together as-is, which is almost always a bad idea.
On the post: You Can't Be Tough On Big Tech While Killing Off Alternatives To It
Re:
A quote cited in the first article on this:
“It says any person who is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person – which can mean anything. If I transfer bitcoin for you, then it can mean I become a broker.”
The issue is the language is super broad. We don't actually know what the courts will make of it. It might be that the contents of the block chain that federated sites like Mastodon use would be considered digital assets. From the discussions, it doesn't seem to be a large consideration right now, "Asset" might have a well established definition in law that there is no ambiguity.
But even if Mastodon or similar are not under threat right now, further development might trip them up without the law being clarified now.
On the post: You Can't Be Tough On Big Tech While Killing Off Alternatives To It
Re: Written Law
That said, you are right to not trust the administration. None of us should. If it is not in the text of the law, the next administration wont care about the promises Biden made even if Biden really means it. Thats as far as you needed to go. But since you went further, I will address your facts.
I don't remember promises that the ACA wouldn't be a tax, but the ACA did have a number of provisions intended to prevent tax increases to pay for the bill, with the promise that because of these provisions we wouldn't need to increase taxes to pay for it. Slight difference. The ACA non-coverage tax doesn't pay for the increased spending, so id call that a promise kept. (I'd also contest the courtroom arguments as 'begging', but that's not a factual claim so I won't fight that battle).
There are much better comparisons you could make that better match the fact pattern, like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan", a horribly phrased promise that, on its face, was obviously not going to survive in the face of the draft legislation as it already existed.
Worse there are better, more recent non-partisan examples that don't go out of their way to suggest the issue is only seen from Democrat administrations: "FOSTA/SESTA won't affect legal content" being a common example that keeps getting highlighted by Techdirt as being a blind spot on every side in the government.
On the post: Signal Founder Cracks Cellebrite Phone Hacking Device, Finds It Full Of Vulns
Re: Re: Re: tiny correction?
You can't on Facebook. Enter submits. Same with twitter. But that doesn't matter, because you didn't indicate you were trying to make a new line. You discussed the enter key behavior from the "post title". Techdirt doesn't have a field that uses that label in the UI. But I can assume you mean the "Subject" box. The subject box is....a different text box than the body. That field would be properly limited to a single line with word wrap enabled. I had assumed you were trying to navigate to the main comment text box, which would be a move to a completely different field, not a new line, because that is what you described.
And I know you can't be talking about new lines in the body section of the comments. Because in the body section, where new lines are both expected and normal, enter works as you describe. So your issue is not a text box not creating a new line. Your issue is that you are trying to move from the Subject field to the Body field with enter, which is navigating a form. The use of enter for this purpose hasn't been in vogue for decades.
On the post: Despite 20 Years Of Experience, Comcast/NBC Still Sucks At Olympics Coverage
Re:
I don't see that the author ever expressed that they want more Olympics. At best they want more Olympics coverage, but even that requires assuming you have correctly identified subtextual motives. That said:
Tech dirt Article: The IOC is corrupt.
Techdirt Article: Comcast/NBC is greedy and incompetent, and thanks to IOC's corruption, they are apathetic to systemic failures in Comcast's coverage of the Olypmics caused by the greed and incompetence. This is impacting the ability of fans to view these events.
FTFY.
These are not contradictory. You can recognize that the IOC is corrupt and still point out that NBC is corrupt. You can recognize that the IOC is corrupt and still want to support loved ones (no one but athletes are allowed in Tokyo, unlike previous olympics). You can recognize the IOC is corrupt and want to watch athletic events rarely broadcast widely.
Or if you are a news opinion site like techdirt, you might both report and comment on the IOC corruption and then comment that a major national broadcaster is incompitent at displaying the event put on by the corrupt organization. In fact, those things might be related.
So as Samual Abrams asked: What is you point? You've suggested a hypocracy, but I struggle to formulate how Techdirt is being inconsistent.
On the post: Biden Warns That The Next Kinetic War Will Be The Result Of A Cyberattack, Which Is Stupid
Re: Re:
Highly disagree. The type of deliberate attack you describe seems intended to generate a nuclear retaliation. Thats what you imply by the statement “the window for retaliation or defense is closing fast”. If we get data that a sudden incoming attack so overwhelming that we had to commit before verifying, or would provoke a nuclear response. If a near peer nuclear armed nation intends to start a nuclear war, they’ll just launch.
Your arguement might be that a third party would be the attacker, but still it would not be a kinetic war. We’d be a cinder before we ever got to boots on the ground.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
You are the one who brought up that certain speech violates the first amendment. I'm just pointing out that under your standard, this material is not barred from the platform.
As Techdirt has repeatedly said, Facebook should be more transparent. But using the courts violates the first amendment.
Interestingly, you didn't just suggest a photo, for a direct comparison. No, I had to do a video edit, which implies more work, time, effort. That tends to imply I am more serious than a cheap photoshop. But I'd also note Obama's head was blown up in Kingsman without much fanfare.
In the modern era, the secret service has to actually assess threats, rather than hammer each one. I know for a fact that not all people claiming a desire for trump to die or to kill trump themselves saw the Secret service. If I put together that video id be looked at because creating that video suggests a deeper level of motivation than shitposting by suggesting trump might get arrested and killed. as Techdirt as repeatedly noted: Context is critical in moderation.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: Re: Re: Let's Check The Details
Just as a random example, an image of trump in a orange prison jumpsuit being executed by a 'militant' is claimed to be a death threat. But as political commentary, it is more reasonably assumed to be a prediction or wish of how events will play out, with no impetus from the poster.
A death threat is only unprotected by the first amendment if it is a direct threat and the poster or a direct associate could reasonably be assumed to be capable, or it is otherwise considered harassment. A Photo of trump in jail being killed by militants is not a direct threat, and any reasonable viewer would understand that. Your attempt at a legal position is kinda shit.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: Let's Check The Details
Gettr's policy was to not moderate. But even assuming they made parlor's promise to only moderate material not protected by the first amendment...
Interesting. So free speech, but only for americans then? Getter isn't a free speech platform, but an american speech platform? Nice shifting of the goalposts.
Worse, you haven't actually shown that anything is from a foreigner or a violent threat as established by 1A precident. Your quote describes posts that might be quite legal under the first amendment (depending on exact wording and context) and could easily be posted by US citizens. You'd think a free speech advocate, particularly a limited US-only free speech advocate, would know that a lot more evidence would be required to establish a breach of first amendment protections.
Facebook cites the same policies Gettr does. Facebook has rules they point to as well. You just don't like those rules. Then again, as I highlighted, im not sure what rules you think are okay.
On the post: Cell Phones Still Somehow Get The Entirety Of The Blame For Teen Depression
View from nowhere studies strike again
I mean, a supercomputer in your pocket and social media allow you to be more aware of all the worlds issues. I fully believe the data they have, they just don't spend any time thinking at all about why. Its the classic "view from nowhere" problem applied to science. Surface assessment of factual data, surface conclusion, no real thought into what it is that kids see on social media.
The scientists should know social media tends to discuss and link to reporting on current events. They should know that since the 2008 financial collapse, exacerbated in the last 4 years, and rocket-strapped after the 2020 pandemic and ongoing economic and health crisis, there has been a steadily growing discontent with the economic structures in the developed world. Social media doesn't just allow harassment, it allows those discussions.
A constant refrain from mental health professionals is the dispair my generation, millenials, experience in the face of major 2 economic disasters in my adult lifetime, evidence that policy is focusing recovery to maintain the cash flows of the rich stunting recovery for anyone else, a housing market impacted by a few hording excess housing for profit driving costs so high that home ownership is impractical and holds less value than for previous generations, and wages that have not appreciably increased in our lifetime as costs go up all around us. We are sharing that with others on social media. We explain this. And it causes further dispair.
But thats not because of social media. Its because of the socio-economic realities of modern life. Social Media justs allows those realities to be expressed to a wider audiance.
I'd have loved to read the articles on how the radio was causing depression because it had someone read the news.
On the post: Copyright Ruins Everything Again: How Dare A Sports Writer Get People Excited About The Olympics!
Re:
The online solution is currently to use Peacock, NBC's streaming platform. I don't know if the Olympics are free, but Peacock premium can be accessed without a cable package as a standalone service
On the post: Police Union Gives 'Officer Of The Year' Award To A Cop Who Spent Last Year Suspended
Re: Re: Re: what cops need
YOu suggestions are the same suggestions offered 50 years ago, to no effect. Most people won't explain the solutions when you offer suggestions like that because you don't know enough about the history to know that your suggestsions have been the failed alternatives to solutions that have been proposed for 50 years. Seriously, government investigations and civil rights groups have made the same suggestions for the last 50 years after every big anti-police brutality protest. They have been ignored. Someone with a genuine interest in reform of the police will know the solutions.
But just for you, Actual suggestions? Move away from the military model, and toward community-based policing.
Strip qualified immunity, replace it with indemnification, and all use of force needs to investigated by a civilian body outside normal or retired law enforcement
Police rarely get notice of violence in progress, and even more rarely can intercede while it is ongoing, and even more rarely is a gun the only option. Stop giving patrol officers guns. Period.
End drug busts. They are dangerous. They are inefficient. They cause more collateral damage then they solve.
Notably, most of these require rebuilding the charters of some departments, and removing most of the senior workforce and the existing union to achieve, as they have been the barriers to these solutions in the past.
These reforms, and others, can be implemented. Camden, New Jersey did it. Disbanded its police (knocked it down) and built a new one. It reduced crime. All it took was getting rid of the existing police force and implementing community based policing.
Next >>