The thing is that in writing that portion of the law, Congress made it pretty clear that their goal was to "encourage" and "incentivize" moderation, which is why you see that word used so often to describe s.230
So you are correct that technically the statute itself does not say anything about "encouraging" - but that was and is very much its stated purpose.
*With a comprehensive suite, you are limited to what the suite allows, and if a new way of doing something, or new capabilities are developed outside the tool, you either have a cumbersome save and import to use them or have to wait for the suite provider to add the facility. With the separate approach, and external composition, such things are more easily brought into the work flow.*
Sure. But the reality is (as started this conversation) that's not generally the case - Adobe's software has almost every capability long *before* any competitors, and all the components are extremely interoperable. Most important file formats are universal these days, so there are no import issues - and external composition is no problem when using such formats. Plus, the scripting & plugin capabilities of the Adobe sweet are very robust, so plenty of customization and third-party extension exists.
I do realize there are advantages to your approach, for sure. But for many graphic design workflows, I still don't believe they outweigh the advantage of a comprehensive suite and a lot of very smart on-the-fly flexibility.
Arcades are making a bit of a comeback here in Toronto, but they are generally abandoning the coin-operated approach now, since you just can't as easily convince people to show up with a pocketful of quarters. But now we've got a few bars that have huge collections of vintage and newer pinball & arcade machines, all set to free-play mode, with a $5 or so cover at the door. It's much better that way :) But of course, the "culture and experience" part still very much applies to the social aspect of it, even without the weight of the coin.
Sidenote: EVO 2018 pools for Street Fighter V are happening as we speak! :) Finals on Sunday...
I've still yet to see anything that approaches Adobe's level of integration and cross-compatibility between different tools though. In a complex graphic design workflow, it's really hard to imagine giving it up.
For one project it may not seem like a big deal to use your vector editor on one desktop, save down to a postscript format, import that into something like GIMP and rasterize it - then repeat this process if you decide you want to change something in the vector or rasterize it at a different size/resolution whatnot.
But multiply that out over dozens or hundreds of jobs combining vector and raster tools, or just one big complex job involving many separate elements, and you can pry my pasteable on-the-fly vector smart objects from my cold dead keyboard fingers :)
Pixlr does look pretty nice - though, a lot of the key photoshop featuress aren't available with the free version. If I'm reading the site right, the aforementioned Adjustment Layers are only in the pro subscription, along with other really critical stuff like layer masks, colour curves, and blend modes. Of course, Pixlr Pro is still much cheaper than Creative Suite.
Really part of the issue is that photoshop is HUGE and can do so many things. There are whole design-related careers that use different parts of photoshop with barely any overlap in the tools they use. Pure photo touch-up stuff has more software alternatives out there - but the more advanced editing and composition capabilities are rarer.
It's not online-only to operate it (yeah that would for sure be a dealbreaker) but yes it is subscription-based software now (you need to be able to connect at least once every 30 days if you have a month-to-month subscription, or once every 99 days if you prepay, and then it will operate offline the rest of the time). And yeah, not thrilled with that model.
Though I haven't switched to that version yet - I'm still using old copies of CS6, from before they went to the subscription model. And they are *still* way ahead of current open-source alternatives.
Though OpenOffice/LibreOffice/NeoOffice are all essentially complete replacements for MS software, sadly I wouldn't say the same about GIMP as a replacement for Photoshop.
GIMP is excellent software, and very impressive, but Adobe is just so far ahead of the pack on that stuff. GIMP lacks some really key capabilities, such as non-destructive Adjustment Layers (this is probably the reason 90% of people who have considered switching decided not to) and full integration with vector tools like Illustrator (photoshop's Vector Smart Objects, which can be created on the fly with a straight copy-paste from Illustrator, are one of the most useful things in a full graphic design workflow).
I would dearly love to switch from Adobe software to GIMP (and Inkscape too) and I hope one day I will, but at the moment it would mean giving up SO much.
For sure :) But, my point here wasn't "the police are powerful so it's okay to criticize them" (though that's true too) - rather it was that, on a more basic level, it's valid to criticize an institution with an organizational structure based on the actions of some of its members, and that's not "generalization" in the same way as criticizing a race of people based on the actions of some members of that race.
The people involved in producing it definitely have free speech rights. (And, more to the point here, freedom of the press rights.) Their First Amendment rights would be implicated in any such hypothetical decision.
By the by, you do realize internet platforms are created by people too, right?
*See, this is why I said above that you're arguing in bad faith. You're twisting my words into something I never said.*
No, I'm trying to **understand** what you are saying, because you're not being very clear or making much sense.
And we're just back to where we started: you are offering zero definition of what makes these things the de facto public square. Twitter is used by a minority of American internet users, and an even smaller minority of Americans in general. It has no power to prevent people putting up websites, publishing blogs, putting their content on one of myriad other social networks and similar platforms, or anything else outside its own large-but-not-dominant ecosystem.
First off, I'm proposing that First Amendment rights belong to the people, it's fundamentally a mistake to consider that anyone except for a human being possesses them.
So newspapers and broadcasters, for example, have no free speech rights in your eyes? If congress passed a law saying "no incorporated newspaper may publish articles critical of the president or other elected representatives" on penalty of crippling fines, there would be no First Amendment issue there?
the First Amendment restricts the government, and only the government, from censoring the speech of the people mostly as an accident of history, because when it was drafted, the government was the only entity with the capability of doing so
No it wasn't. There were private landowners, privately owned spaces where events happened, private universities, private newspapers, private book publishers, private pamphleteers... The framers declined to place first amendment restrictions on their practices, and for good reason - because it makes zero sense to do so.
If you become big enough to enter that space, which used to be the sole province of governments
What are you talking about? You really, really need to start being more precise.
When was it the "sole province of governments" to provide a conversational forum used by a minority of the population, like Twitter?
I'm not arguing in bad faith. You're proposing that internet platforms be stripped of their first amendment rights and be essentially converted into public entities subject to the same rules as the government - and all you can say about the conditions for this happening is "political scientists will figure it out". That's pretty meaningless.
I would point out that "public square" doesn't even have a real legal definition, so you're not even really proposing anything. "Public forum" is a legal concept - and the absolute core and heart of its definition is that it is a space owned and operated by the government.
On the very, very rare occasions that states have extended public forum protections to a privately operated space - something the Supreme Court has said they are allowed to do, but that the first amendment does not require and the federal government will not do - it has been in situations where the private space was immovably dominant and there were no alternative fora for a particular kind of speech. That is clearly not the case with Twitter - it represents only a tiny fraction of the potential for publishing your speech and reaching an audience online.
How many things do you use and rely upon in your day-to-day life without having a good explanation for how they work?
Some. Though, if I want to propose sweeping legal changes for them that involve massive government intervention and fundamentally new interpretations of the highest law in the land, I try to learn how they work first.
*But can you really deny that, at some point along the way, it has done so?*
Yes. I completely deny that. I don't see the logic in claiming that Twitter is the public square **at all** - it seems completely arbitrary and silly to me, a declaration made out of a vague "feeling" just because something is culturally popular or powerful.
And if you don't even have the beginning of a scrap of a definition of when you think it happens, then I think that shows I'm quite correct.
*The only restrictions on conversation should only BE..
you have to listen, to what others say..*
What does that mean? Like, should everyone be legally required to read Techdirt? It'd be great for our advertising rates, but I'm not sure that's a workable plan...
2. TRY to understand their side(S) and there WILL BE MANY.
How, exactly, do you place a "restriction" on "conversation" such that people are forced to "try to understand"? Do you have a universal mindreading device I don't know about?
3. NO PERSONAL INSULTS, leave my grandmothers son out of it.
Well there goes 75% of Twitter, and a lot of great Trump jokes.
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
Re: CDA Section 230...
The thing is that in writing that portion of the law, Congress made it pretty clear that their goal was to "encourage" and "incentivize" moderation, which is why you see that word used so often to describe s.230
So you are correct that technically the statute itself does not say anything about "encouraging" - but that was and is very much its stated purpose.
On the post: You Can't Compete With Free Meets Its Ultimate Counterexample In The NES Classic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. But the reality is (as started this conversation) that's not generally the case - Adobe's software has almost every capability long *before* any competitors, and all the components are extremely interoperable. Most important file formats are universal these days, so there are no import issues - and external composition is no problem when using such formats. Plus, the scripting & plugin capabilities of the Adobe sweet are very robust, so plenty of customization and third-party extension exists.
On the post: You Can't Compete With Free Meets Its Ultimate Counterexample In The NES Classic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do realize there are advantages to your approach, for sure. But for many graphic design workflows, I still don't believe they outweigh the advantage of a comprehensive suite and a lot of very smart on-the-fly flexibility.
On the post: You Can't Compete With Free Meets Its Ultimate Counterexample In The NES Classic
Re: Re: Re: It's true
Sidenote: EVO 2018 pools for Street Fighter V are happening as we speak! :) Finals on Sunday...
On the post: You Can't Compete With Free Meets Its Ultimate Counterexample In The NES Classic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For one project it may not seem like a big deal to use your vector editor on one desktop, save down to a postscript format, import that into something like GIMP and rasterize it - then repeat this process if you decide you want to change something in the vector or rasterize it at a different size/resolution whatnot.
But multiply that out over dozens or hundreds of jobs combining vector and raster tools, or just one big complex job involving many separate elements, and you can pry my pasteable on-the-fly vector smart objects from my cold dead keyboard fingers :)
On the post: You Can't Compete With Free Meets Its Ultimate Counterexample In The NES Classic
Re: Re: Re:
Really part of the issue is that photoshop is HUGE and can do so many things. There are whole design-related careers that use different parts of photoshop with barely any overlap in the tools they use. Pure photo touch-up stuff has more software alternatives out there - but the more advanced editing and composition capabilities are rarer.
On the post: You Can't Compete With Free Meets Its Ultimate Counterexample In The NES Classic
Re: Re: Re:
Though I haven't switched to that version yet - I'm still using old copies of CS6, from before they went to the subscription model. And they are *still* way ahead of current open-source alternatives.
On the post: You Can't Compete With Free Meets Its Ultimate Counterexample In The NES Classic
Re:
GIMP is excellent software, and very impressive, but Adobe is just so far ahead of the pack on that stuff. GIMP lacks some really key capabilities, such as non-destructive Adjustment Layers (this is probably the reason 90% of people who have considered switching decided not to) and full integration with vector tools like Illustrator (photoshop's Vector Smart Objects, which can be created on the fly with a straight copy-paste from Illustrator, are one of the most useful things in a full graphic design workflow).
I would dearly love to switch from Adobe software to GIMP (and Inkscape too) and I hope one day I will, but at the moment it would mean giving up SO much.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Credit where it's due
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words the elevated status of LEOs doesn't just mean that criticism of them is valid, it's demanded as a check on their power.
Agree completely! Well said.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Mr. Dent
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
For sure :) But, my point here wasn't "the police are powerful so it's okay to criticize them" (though that's true too) - rather it was that, on a more basic level, it's valid to criticize an institution with an organizational structure based on the actions of some of its members, and that's not "generalization" in the same way as criticizing a race of people based on the actions of some members of that race.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
whether it be cops, different races
The police are an organization with rules, procedures, training, legal oversight, and a command structure.
People of different races are just people.
On the post: Grandstanding Idiots In Congress Attack Social Media For Censoring Too Much And Too Little Without Understanding Anything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The people involved in producing it definitely have free speech rights. (And, more to the point here, freedom of the press rights.) Their First Amendment rights would be implicated in any such hypothetical decision.
By the by, you do realize internet platforms are created by people too, right?
On the post: Grandstanding Idiots In Congress Attack Social Media For Censoring Too Much And Too Little Without Understanding Anything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm trying to **understand** what you are saying, because you're not being very clear or making much sense.
And we're just back to where we started: you are offering zero definition of what makes these things the de facto public square. Twitter is used by a minority of American internet users, and an even smaller minority of Americans in general. It has no power to prevent people putting up websites, publishing blogs, putting their content on one of myriad other social networks and similar platforms, or anything else outside its own large-but-not-dominant ecosystem.
On the post: Grandstanding Idiots In Congress Attack Social Media For Censoring Too Much And Too Little Without Understanding Anything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So newspapers and broadcasters, for example, have no free speech rights in your eyes? If congress passed a law saying "no incorporated newspaper may publish articles critical of the president or other elected representatives" on penalty of crippling fines, there would be no First Amendment issue there?
No it wasn't. There were private landowners, privately owned spaces where events happened, private universities, private newspapers, private book publishers, private pamphleteers... The framers declined to place first amendment restrictions on their practices, and for good reason - because it makes zero sense to do so.
If you become big enough to enter that space, which used to be the sole province of governments
What are you talking about? You really, really need to start being more precise.
When was it the "sole province of governments" to provide a conversational forum used by a minority of the population, like Twitter?
On the post: Grandstanding Idiots In Congress Attack Social Media For Censoring Too Much And Too Little Without Understanding Anything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not arguing in bad faith. You're proposing that internet platforms be stripped of their first amendment rights and be essentially converted into public entities subject to the same rules as the government - and all you can say about the conditions for this happening is "political scientists will figure it out". That's pretty meaningless.
I would point out that "public square" doesn't even have a real legal definition, so you're not even really proposing anything. "Public forum" is a legal concept - and the absolute core and heart of its definition is that it is a space owned and operated by the government.
On the very, very rare occasions that states have extended public forum protections to a privately operated space - something the Supreme Court has said they are allowed to do, but that the first amendment does not require and the federal government will not do - it has been in situations where the private space was immovably dominant and there were no alternative fora for a particular kind of speech. That is clearly not the case with Twitter - it represents only a tiny fraction of the potential for publishing your speech and reaching an audience online.
How many things do you use and rely upon in your day-to-day life without having a good explanation for how they work?
Some. Though, if I want to propose sweeping legal changes for them that involve massive government intervention and fundamentally new interpretations of the highest law in the land, I try to learn how they work first.
On the post: Grandstanding Idiots In Congress Attack Social Media For Censoring Too Much And Too Little Without Understanding Anything
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. I completely deny that. I don't see the logic in claiming that Twitter is the public square **at all** - it seems completely arbitrary and silly to me, a declaration made out of a vague "feeling" just because something is culturally popular or powerful.
And if you don't even have the beginning of a scrap of a definition of when you think it happens, then I think that shows I'm quite correct.
On the post: Grandstanding Idiots In Congress Attack Social Media For Censoring Too Much And Too Little Without Understanding Anything
Re: Re: Re: OPINION, TLDR
so we have few people with Any comprehension?? does this include you, also??
Well, at this particular moment... yes I must confess it does.
On the post: Grandstanding Idiots In Congress Attack Social Media For Censoring Too Much And Too Little Without Understanding Anything
Re: OPINION, TLDR
*The only restrictions on conversation should only BE..
What does that mean? Like, should everyone be legally required to read Techdirt? It'd be great for our advertising rates, but I'm not sure that's a workable plan...
2. TRY to understand their side(S) and there WILL BE MANY.
How, exactly, do you place a "restriction" on "conversation" such that people are forced to "try to understand"? Do you have a universal mindreading device I don't know about?
3. NO PERSONAL INSULTS, leave my grandmothers son out of it.
Well there goes 75% of Twitter, and a lot of great Trump jokes.
Next >>