Re: 'Destroy your reputation with this one simple trick!'
Regarding the update, oof, talk about one hell of a 'typo'...
Well, if her 'support' was in fact just a mistype/glitch looks like I'll need to walk back my comment about her joining the dark side and leave all the blame for those that actually are supporting such a horrible bill.
Re: Re: 'Destroy your reputation with this one simple trick!'
As I've noted in the past a right that you can't afford to exercise is one that effectively doesn't exist, and with the primary point of 230 being to allow platforms to make use of their first amendment rights without being sued into oblivion by shutting down first amendment based lawsuit before they get really expensive for the defendants I'd argue that when you scrape away the surface coating protecting first amendment rights is the core purpose of the law.
'Destroy your reputation with this one simple trick!'
Teaming up with insurrectionist supporter Hawley, Lindsey Graham, and Marsha Blackburn to try to kill a law that protects the first amendment over spite and/or to play to the gullible... well that's certainly one way to utterly destroy any positive legacy you might have had, gut your reputation and demonstrate that you need to be replaced come the next election in one move.
If you want to stick it to 'megacorporations' repealing a law that protects their competitors far more than it does them(and in both cases all it does it protect their first amendment rights) is a pretty stupid way to do it.
Only so much you can simplify 'Our house our rules'
There is no chance that 'tldr' just so happened to be the shortened version of the bill name, so nice to see someone has a sense of humor I guess...
As the article notes there's some good and bad in this one. While it would be nice for users not to have to wade through legalese that the vast majority are going to have no chance of understanding a lot of that is almost certainly CYOA by the site owners, and if they have to boil that down it's likely to be something along the lines of 'you use our service at our discretion, and while we have rules we reserve the right to show you the door for any reason we think of that doesn't violate the law' which... isn't exactly going to help users understand more than they already do.
Nice idea, just not sure it will actually accomplish anything, and that's before getting into the potential for sites to be punished for not being 'clear' enough, forcing them to make their summary as encompassing of their rules as possible while still covering everything that might bite them by being left out and putting everything right back at square one.
If causing a 'disruption' to school is grounds for not just suspension but expulsion then it would seem the school staff who treated the whole thing like a legitimate and valid threat even after the student was cleared and deemed harmless would be much more deserving of being shown the door.
It's a science thing and it's utterly ridiculous that Blumenthal is blaming TikTok for that -- and that the media is aiding him in this stupid, stupid moral panic.
I believe you mean 'wildly effective', because as that very paragraph notes in it's intro...
This kind of grandstanding seems to get Blumenthal headlines, which is what he seems to care about most. And the media seems to be eating up the false claim that the Whoosh Bottle Experiment is somehow "a TikTok thing." But it's not.
Sure he comes out looking like a fool to anyone willing to do the barest amount of research into where the experiment actually comes from but not only is that not the target audience what he's doing plays extremely well for the gullible who've been conditioned to blame any and all problems on social media, and whether he's right or not it's still getting him lots of positive tv coverage from stations eager to jump on the 'let's blame [insert tech platform here] for society's problems' train with him.
What he's doing is grossly dishonest but ridiculous it is not, as it's giving him oodles of soundbites of him Doing Something and chances to play to the gullible at no cost to him but some of his time.
Ah come on, what could possibly go wrong from the penchant for the news to glorify and make famous with around the clock coverage anyone who does terrible things?
Even if they do manage to pass this so long as there's no penalty for the ISP's to continue to play dumb they have no reason to change. I mean, it's free money, why would they give that up when they can use the whole thing to try to exploit their customers even more?
'Treat our customers like people? What a crazy idea.'
Which leads to the obvious question: why can't this be the norm?
Because getting the public on your side like that requires that you treat them decently and not try to squeeze every last cent out of them by the most exploitative methods you can think of, and that's just way too much work and not nearly as profitable for most companies.
'We need to be HEAVILY regulated.' -Mark Zuckerburg
I can't help but suspect that if the group had been using pics of Facebook execs and attributing dishonest quotes to them in favor of some political position that the company didn't agree with that would have been enough for them to find something to nail them on, but since it was just a bunch of liars trying to convince people not to vote democrat it was seen as no big deal.
Re: Re: 'No. Now what are you going to do about it?'
Sumagi just below pretty much nailed my response to that, if they are forced to write up the forms you can be sure that by a mysterious quirk of fate it will turn out that on paper at least they're interacting with a lot of white people all of a sudden and who is anyone else to say otherwise?
'Nice music there, be a shame were something to happen to it...'
Oh not no music, just no music not owned by a major label. Any music they post you can be sure will be infringement-claim proof even as everyone else has their music shut down due to bots, making signing with a label once more the only way to survive as a musician.
'Fake news! We never did X! Even if we did that's fine!'
Polish Government: Pegasus? Never heard of it. Evidence: The polish government bought Pegasus, software explicitly designed to spy on people. Polish Government: Okay maybe we've heard of it, but any investigations were purely anti-terrorism and/or anti-corruption related. Evidence: It was used against political opponents and those looking into questionable elections. Polish Government: Fake news! Nothing happened and anyone who says otherwise is lying, something we have demonstrably not done during this debacle so you can trust us over those filthy liars!
'Circular argument? Don't you use those fancy words at me!'
Also Totally-Not-A-Racist-But: "Of course blacks and latinos are more likely to be criminals, just look at how often they're arrested! And of course they're more likely to be arrested, their criminal ways means they need to be carefully watched and any infraction, no matter how seemingly minor, needs to be shut down immediately to head off more serious crimes that they'd surely engage in otherwise what with their criminal inclinations!"
Same way they've done it in the past I'd imagine, break out the laughable and demonstrably wrong argument that if copyright causes creativity then more copyright would surely cause even more creativity.
'If a duration that already lasts decades after the death of the creator was enough to incentive this much creativity just imagine how much infinite duration would incentivize!'
Or just continue to tell the city to get bent as they've been doing so far, I mean it's not like they're facing any consequences for ignoring past legal requirements so why would they expect that to change for ignoring this one?
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Re: Re: Update
"I'm doing what?!"
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Re: 'Destroy your reputation with this one simple trick!'
Regarding the update, oof, talk about one hell of a 'typo'...
Well, if her 'support' was in fact just a mistype/glitch looks like I'll need to walk back my comment about her joining the dark side and leave all the blame for those that actually are supporting such a horrible bill.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Re: Re: 'Destroy your reputation with this one simple trick!'
As I've noted in the past a right that you can't afford to exercise is one that effectively doesn't exist, and with the primary point of 230 being to allow platforms to make use of their first amendment rights without being sued into oblivion by shutting down first amendment based lawsuit before they get really expensive for the defendants I'd argue that when you scrape away the surface coating protecting first amendment rights is the core purpose of the law.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
'Destroy your reputation with this one simple trick!'
Teaming up with insurrectionist supporter Hawley, Lindsey Graham, and Marsha Blackburn to try to kill a law that protects the first amendment over spite and/or to play to the gullible... well that's certainly one way to utterly destroy any positive legacy you might have had, gut your reputation and demonstrate that you need to be replaced come the next election in one move.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Time to run away again coward
and believe that a repeal will end the ability of social media to moderate based upon on political beliefs.
Which 'political beliefs' are suffering unfair moderation Koby, and as always be specific.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Re:
If you want to stick it to 'megacorporations' repealing a law that protects their competitors far more than it does them(and in both cases all it does it protect their first amendment rights) is a pretty stupid way to do it.
On the post: Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist
Re: Re: Stealing Their Thunder
Sure they want 'free speech', they just think that it's short for 'consequence-free speech' and that it only applies to them.
On the post: New 'TLDR' Bill Requires Companies Provide Synopsis Of Overlong, Predatory Terms Of Service
Only so much you can simplify 'Our house our rules'
There is no chance that 'tldr' just so happened to be the shortened version of the bill name, so nice to see someone has a sense of humor I guess...
As the article notes there's some good and bad in this one. While it would be nice for users not to have to wade through legalese that the vast majority are going to have no chance of understanding a lot of that is almost certainly CYOA by the site owners, and if they have to boil that down it's likely to be something along the lines of 'you use our service at our discretion, and while we have rules we reserve the right to show you the door for any reason we think of that doesn't violate the law' which... isn't exactly going to help users understand more than they already do.
Nice idea, just not sure it will actually accomplish anything, and that's before getting into the potential for sites to be punished for not being 'clear' enough, forcing them to make their summary as encompassing of their rules as possible while still covering everything that might bite them by being left out and putting everything right back at square one.
On the post: Pennsylvania Court Reverses Student's Expulsion Over A Snapchat Post, Reminds School Students Still Have Rights
'Be afraid!'
If causing a 'disruption' to school is grounds for not just suspension but expulsion then it would seem the school staff who treated the whole thing like a legitimate and valid threat even after the student was cleared and deemed harmless would be much more deserving of being shown the door.
On the post: Senator Blumenthal Blames TikTok... Due To A Popular And Widely Championed Science Experiment Gone Wrong
If it's stupid and dishonest but it works...
It's a science thing and it's utterly ridiculous that Blumenthal is blaming TikTok for that -- and that the media is aiding him in this stupid, stupid moral panic.
I believe you mean 'wildly effective', because as that very paragraph notes in it's intro...
This kind of grandstanding seems to get Blumenthal headlines, which is what he seems to care about most. And the media seems to be eating up the false claim that the Whoosh Bottle Experiment is somehow "a TikTok thing." But it's not.
Sure he comes out looking like a fool to anyone willing to do the barest amount of research into where the experiment actually comes from but not only is that not the target audience what he's doing plays extremely well for the gullible who've been conditioned to blame any and all problems on social media, and whether he's right or not it's still getting him lots of positive tv coverage from stations eager to jump on the 'let's blame [insert tech platform here] for society's problems' train with him.
What he's doing is grossly dishonest but ridiculous it is not, as it's giving him oodles of soundbites of him Doing Something and chances to play to the gullible at no cost to him but some of his time.
On the post: Senator Blumenthal Blames TikTok... Due To A Popular And Widely Championed Science Experiment Gone Wrong
Re:
Ah come on, what could possibly go wrong from the penchant for the news to glorify and make famous with around the clock coverage anyone who does terrible things?
On the post: FCC Politely Tells ISPs To Stop Abusing Covid Broadband Relief Program To Rip Off Poor People
If you want them to do something, don't ask, tell
Even if they do manage to pass this so long as there's no penalty for the ISP's to continue to play dumb they have no reason to change. I mean, it's free money, why would they give that up when they can use the whole thing to try to exploit their customers even more?
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
'Treat our customers like people? What a crazy idea.'
Which leads to the obvious question: why can't this be the norm?
Because getting the public on your side like that requires that you treat them decently and not try to squeeze every last cent out of them by the most exploitative methods you can think of, and that's just way too much work and not nearly as profitable for most companies.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Facebook Knew About Deceptive Advertising Practices By A Group That Was Later Banned For Operating A Troll Farm (2018-2020)
'We need to be HEAVILY regulated.' -Mark Zuckerburg
I can't help but suspect that if the group had been using pics of Facebook execs and attributing dishonest quotes to them in favor of some political position that the company didn't agree with that would have been enough for them to find something to nail them on, but since it was just a bunch of liars trying to convince people not to vote democrat it was seen as no big deal.
On the post: NYPD Officers Are Again Whining About Being Asked To Document Their Biased Policework
Re: Re: 'No. Now what are you going to do about it?'
Sumagi just below pretty much nailed my response to that, if they are forced to write up the forms you can be sure that by a mysterious quirk of fate it will turn out that on paper at least they're interacting with a lot of white people all of a sudden and who is anyone else to say otherwise?
On the post: How The Financialization Of Music Could Lead To Demands For Perpetual Copyright
'Nice music there, be a shame were something to happen to it...'
Oh not no music, just no music not owned by a major label. Any music they post you can be sure will be infringement-claim proof even as everyone else has their music shut down due to bots, making signing with a label once more the only way to survive as a musician.
On the post: Polish Gov't Finally Admits It Deployed NSO Malware, Pretends Targeting Of Opposition Leaders Isn't Abusive
'Fake news! We never did X! Even if we did that's fine!'
Polish Government: Pegasus? Never heard of it.
Evidence: The polish government bought Pegasus, software explicitly designed to spy on people.
Polish Government: Okay maybe we've heard of it, but any investigations were purely anti-terrorism and/or anti-corruption related.
Evidence: It was used against political opponents and those looking into questionable elections.
Polish Government: Fake news! Nothing happened and anyone who says otherwise is lying, something we have demonstrably not done during this debacle so you can trust us over those filthy liars!
On the post: NYPD Officers Are Again Whining About Being Asked To Document Their Biased Policework
'Circular argument? Don't you use those fancy words at me!'
Also Totally-Not-A-Racist-But: "Of course blacks and latinos are more likely to be criminals, just look at how often they're arrested! And of course they're more likely to be arrested, their criminal ways means they need to be carefully watched and any infraction, no matter how seemingly minor, needs to be shut down immediately to head off more serious crimes that they'd surely engage in otherwise what with their criminal inclinations!"
On the post: How The Financialization Of Music Could Lead To Demands For Perpetual Copyright
Re: Seller beware
Same way they've done it in the past I'd imagine, break out the laughable and demonstrably wrong argument that if copyright causes creativity then more copyright would surely cause even more creativity.
'If a duration that already lasts decades after the death of the creator was enough to incentive this much creativity just imagine how much infinite duration would incentivize!'
On the post: NYPD Officers Are Again Whining About Being Asked To Document Their Biased Policework
'No. Now what are you going to do about it?'
Or just continue to tell the city to get bent as they've been doing so far, I mean it's not like they're facing any consequences for ignoring past legal requirements so why would they expect that to change for ignoring this one?
Next >>