"So, when users click "Back" key to get rid of the app, it'll happily use user's credientals to advertise the game to new audiences?"
No, and stop lying about the site.
I know you can't stand that yet another competent developer is making a lot of money by doing things that you refuse to do like offering products that people want to use, but making up things to be angry about doesn't help you.
I'm sure you'll entertain us with what the parallel universe you live in's version of "damage" is, but if you're referring to people sharing what they like on social media and you being too lazy/stupid to hide the posts if you don't like them, that's not it.
Give him a moment, it's a perfect storm of things to break his brain - another developer to be jealous of because their useful work reaped rewards, another example of everybody benefitting by not implementing the insane restrictions he claims are necessary to succeed, software that's designed to be so easily useful and usable that it naturally led its users to recommend it to others...
I'm sure he'll be back to complaining about fictional copyright laws and how it's unfair that the software he claims to have broken on purpose doesn't sell any time soon.
"My opinion is that supporting private silencing is against the premise of free speech"
Again, nobody's being silenced, you fucking idiot. DirectTV have simply chosen not to sell their amplifiers to OANN after its current contract ends. They are still free to speak via other means, you're just not allowed to force tother people to amplify it for them if they don't wish to do so.
We can still hear you, OANN, and any other lying whiny bitch who feels the need to lie about this issue. As I've said before, for people who are being "silenced", I hear you idiots alll the fucking time.
"despite your fallacy that it has anything to do with Fox or Breitbart."
You've claimed to get most of your news from them, and you're parroting some of the deliberately wrong conclusions they feed their audiences in order to pretend that they're being unfairly punished when people tell them to go elsewhere when they act like assholes.
If what you say is nothing to do with those venues, then I am impressed at how closely you are copying their ideas.
"Your implication is that I have an opinion on the contract issue of OAN and DTV which is incorrect."
Then, what's your problem? No free speech is affected, the only thing that's happened is that DirectTV have opted not to renew a supplier contract. Why the whining about free speech fi what you have a problem with is not the ONLY thing that's happened?
"I am concerned with the eventual erosion of options."
I'm concerned with assholes trying to co-opt private platforms and audiences that don't want them under a misrepresentation of what free speech entails.
You, OANN and any other idiot has the right to their opinions, and the right to express them. You just can't force other people to listen to or host you. That is fine, and changing that fact involves removing rights from. others - which informed people are not going to let you do just because you feel you have to lie about the scope of free speech.
Meh, I'm always on the fence about A Serbian Film. It was undeniably a very well made film, but it always seemed to me that the claims of political commentary came when there was a backlash against some of the more extreme content and they wanted to claim it wasn't just an exploitation film. Of course, politics and exploitation movies go hand in hand a lot of the time, I've just remained unconvinced there.
"To truly support freedom of speech you must support all speech."
Which includes the right to free association, and DirectTV have chosen not to be associated with OANN.
This is what I love about people whose brains have been turned to mush by Murdoch and Breitbart - you claim to be for freedom while actively opposing it.
"in reality when someone is removed from a platform their voice absolutely has been silenced – on that platform"
...which is meaningless to the point of triviality if there are other platforms to choose from and/or they are not being blocked by the government.
OANN want to use DirectTV's property. DirectTV have chosen not to renew the contract that would allow this to happen. That is their right, and it's not a problem until all the whiny children come out in droves to pretend that their "rights" are violated because they can't co-opt someone else's property against their will.
I'm sorry that adult debate based on verifiable facts is yet again too much of a "leftist" concept to you, but a contract decision made between a private company and one of its suppliers is not a free speech issue, no matter how much you scream about it.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. If you think that you can dictate to end users what they want rather than listening to what they want, you're in trouble.
I've worked for startups that have pivoted their entire business model due to user feedback. I somehow doubt that anyone's going to continue using your product after being told they don't matter and their experience is designed to cause them problems.
"I pointed out my complaint about a loaded, intended-to-trigger headline—and how that headline serve no purpose but to cause a reaction."
Then started to ramble about bullshit like this affects free speech.
You're free to stop visiting this opinion blog if you find that people have different opinions to you that you can't deal with. Otherwise, there's literally no problem.
Then, what's the problem? According to your own words, the only issue is that someone else watching a perfectly legitimate action stated an opinion about it that you disagree with. So?
"As far as ‘who else’… well rachel maddow did it quite a bit in the past. I used to listen to her during the Obama era, as she was a one-sided hit-girl that supported my presidential choice."
I still can't fathom how someone could actually support Obama's policies then go for Trump with his vastly opposed policies (even if you were naive enough to believe he'd get anything other than a casual grift done). Especially coming into the second term with all the failures and corruption of the first term being so obvious and no longer having the Clinton boogeyman to scare you.
But, let's say you're correct, - so what? The problem being discussed is not political opinions, it's actual lies. I don't take much notice of Maddow, but one case I'm aware of is that OANN complained about her claims about them being paid propaganda and they had to pay $250k in costs.
"Digging up dirt is what journalism is."
Reporting facts is what journalism is, and one part of that is that you have to verify that they're true. I have very few interactions with MSNBC/CNN in general, but my experience with them vs. OANN and similar outlets is that at least they attempt to do that on occasion. OANN are likely not long for this world, not because they didn't get a contract renewed, but because they lied in ways that cause material harm to people who are suing them.
I look forward to whatever the next thread is that you participate in, which will probably be characterised by you claiming that the next journalist digging up dirt is a paid member of the Democratic party so they should be ignored for reason.
Re: Is there a real problem here or an imagainary one?
"Yes, it violates regs, but it's secure and apparently works fine."
Define "secure". Maybe the communication is secure, but you're offloading security to a third party who practices have not been approved or vetted. You're also trusting that the app itself hasn't been compromised. It sounds to me that comms that could be compromised by convincing a grunt to download your special version of the app would attract a lot of interest in some circles. If people are able to install unapproved apps on their phones then why not your spyware version?
On 9/11 the death of approx. 3000 people was considered such a huge and shocking event that it changed world history. During the pandemic, 3000 lives per day* are lost, and some people say that it's just the cost of doing business and you shouldn't inconvenience their daily lives as a result.
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Re: Re:
So, you're saying that a product should be illegal if people talk about it.
You are a true lunatic, and it would be funny if you weren't such a complete failure.
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Re: Re: Re:
"So, when users click "Back" key to get rid of the app, it'll happily use user's credientals to advertise the game to new audiences?"
No, and stop lying about the site.
I know you can't stand that yet another competent developer is making a lot of money by doing things that you refuse to do like offering products that people want to use, but making up things to be angry about doesn't help you.
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure you'll entertain us with what the parallel universe you live in's version of "damage" is, but if you're referring to people sharing what they like on social media and you being too lazy/stupid to hide the posts if you don't like them, that's not it.
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Re:
Give him a moment, it's a perfect storm of things to break his brain - another developer to be jealous of because their useful work reaped rewards, another example of everybody benefitting by not implementing the insane restrictions he claims are necessary to succeed, software that's designed to be so easily useful and usable that it naturally led its users to recommend it to others...
I'm sure he'll be back to complaining about fictional copyright laws and how it's unfair that the software he claims to have broken on purpose doesn't sell any time soon.
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Re: The great idea?
Wow. Even on such a basic concept as this game, you've completely failed to grasp anything about what made it entertaining and useful.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My opinion is that supporting private silencing is against the premise of free speech"
Again, nobody's being silenced, you fucking idiot. DirectTV have simply chosen not to sell their amplifiers to OANN after its current contract ends. They are still free to speak via other means, you're just not allowed to force tother people to amplify it for them if they don't wish to do so.
We can still hear you, OANN, and any other lying whiny bitch who feels the need to lie about this issue. As I've said before, for people who are being "silenced", I hear you idiots alll the fucking time.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"despite your fallacy that it has anything to do with Fox or Breitbart."
You've claimed to get most of your news from them, and you're parroting some of the deliberately wrong conclusions they feed their audiences in order to pretend that they're being unfairly punished when people tell them to go elsewhere when they act like assholes.
If what you say is nothing to do with those venues, then I am impressed at how closely you are copying their ideas.
"Your implication is that I have an opinion on the contract issue of OAN and DTV which is incorrect."
Then, what's your problem? No free speech is affected, the only thing that's happened is that DirectTV have opted not to renew a supplier contract. Why the whining about free speech fi what you have a problem with is not the ONLY thing that's happened?
"I am concerned with the eventual erosion of options."
I'm concerned with assholes trying to co-opt private platforms and audiences that don't want them under a misrepresentation of what free speech entails.
You, OANN and any other idiot has the right to their opinions, and the right to express them. You just can't force other people to listen to or host you. That is fine, and changing that fact involves removing rights from. others - which informed people are not going to let you do just because you feel you have to lie about the scope of free speech.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stunning
Meh, I'm always on the fence about A Serbian Film. It was undeniably a very well made film, but it always seemed to me that the claims of political commentary came when there was a backlash against some of the more extreme content and they wanted to claim it wasn't just an exploitation film. Of course, politics and exploitation movies go hand in hand a lot of the time, I've just remained unconvinced there.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"To truly support freedom of speech you must support all speech."
Which includes the right to free association, and DirectTV have chosen not to be associated with OANN.
This is what I love about people whose brains have been turned to mush by Murdoch and Breitbart - you claim to be for freedom while actively opposing it.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"in reality when someone is removed from a platform their voice absolutely has been silenced – on that platform"
...which is meaningless to the point of triviality if there are other platforms to choose from and/or they are not being blocked by the government.
OANN want to use DirectTV's property. DirectTV have chosen not to renew the contract that would allow this to happen. That is their right, and it's not a problem until all the whiny children come out in droves to pretend that their "rights" are violated because they can't co-opt someone else's property against their will.
I'm sorry that adult debate based on verifiable facts is yet again too much of a "leftist" concept to you, but a contract decision made between a private company and one of its suppliers is not a free speech issue, no matter how much you scream about it.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I see an author praising the silencing of an opinion.
A statement in direct opposition to free speech."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20220117/06314348300/directv-finally-dumps-oan-limit ing-conspiracy-propaganda-channels-reach.shtml#c1358
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. If you think that you can dictate to end users what they want rather than listening to what they want, you're in trouble.
I've worked for startups that have pivoted their entire business model due to user feedback. I somehow doubt that anyone's going to continue using your product after being told they don't matter and their experience is designed to cause them problems.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You tell me.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I pointed out my complaint about a loaded, intended-to-trigger headline—and how that headline serve no purpose but to cause a reaction."
Then started to ramble about bullshit like this affects free speech.
You're free to stop visiting this opinion blog if you find that people have different opinions to you that you can't deal with. Otherwise, there's literally no problem.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then, what's the problem? According to your own words, the only issue is that someone else watching a perfectly legitimate action stated an opinion about it that you disagree with. So?
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"A provider dump Ed two channels. That is their right"
Then. what's your problem?
No free speech is affected. OANN are free to speak anywhere they wish, they just no longer have the right to use DirectTV's service to amplify it.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Not quite as problematic as the left trying to compel"
Which might be a problem if it was actually happening.
"Mind explaining for the rest of the world?"
I think everybody else understood me fine. What was your problem?
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re: Re: Re:
"As far as ‘who else’… well rachel maddow did it quite a bit in the past. I used to listen to her during the Obama era, as she was a one-sided hit-girl that supported my presidential choice."
I still can't fathom how someone could actually support Obama's policies then go for Trump with his vastly opposed policies (even if you were naive enough to believe he'd get anything other than a casual grift done). Especially coming into the second term with all the failures and corruption of the first term being so obvious and no longer having the Clinton boogeyman to scare you.
But, let's say you're correct, - so what? The problem being discussed is not political opinions, it's actual lies. I don't take much notice of Maddow, but one case I'm aware of is that OANN complained about her claims about them being paid propaganda and they had to pay $250k in costs.
"Digging up dirt is what journalism is."
Reporting facts is what journalism is, and one part of that is that you have to verify that they're true. I have very few interactions with MSNBC/CNN in general, but my experience with them vs. OANN and similar outlets is that at least they attempt to do that on occasion. OANN are likely not long for this world, not because they didn't get a contract renewed, but because they lied in ways that cause material harm to people who are suing them.
I look forward to whatever the next thread is that you participate in, which will probably be characterised by you claiming that the next journalist digging up dirt is a paid member of the Democratic party so they should be ignored for reason.
On the post: Because The Defense Department's Secure Communications Options Don't Work For Everyone, Soldiers Are Turning To Signal And WhatsApp
Re: Is there a real problem here or an imagainary one?
"Yes, it violates regs, but it's secure and apparently works fine."
Define "secure". Maybe the communication is secure, but you're offloading security to a third party who practices have not been approved or vetted. You're also trusting that the app itself hasn't been compromised. It sounds to me that comms that could be compromised by convincing a grunt to download your special version of the app would attract a lot of interest in some circles. If people are able to install unapproved apps on their phones then why not your spyware version?
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Re: Re: Re:
Or, another analogy I've used many times myself.
On 9/11 the death of approx. 3000 people was considered such a huge and shocking event that it changed world history. During the pandemic, 3000 lives per day* are lost, and some people say that it's just the cost of doing business and you shouldn't inconvenience their daily lives as a result.
Next >>