Re: Yes, WE KNOW, CORPORATISTS LIED UNTIL GAINED POWER.
So today I’d like to take a new approach: leveling with you.
Don't tell it to the politicians. Tell it to THE USERS. Tell the users that you are editorializing. Tell the users that you are picking winners and losers. Be honest that you are actively hiding opinions with which you disagree. Inform everyone that your algorithm is biased, not to display relevant results, but to push an agenda. Just be straightforward and honest with your own customers, not with a bunch of useless politicians.
I say that for some of them, they develop a superiority complex. They may believe that they are judge, jury, and executioner. The subject in this case saw a police car following him, so he stopped his vehicle to see what was the matter. This action probably short-circuited whatever the cop was planning on doing, so it's onto Plan B: deliver some "punishment" anyhow.
Except that the cop got caught on camera and lost his job. Good riddance.
Also, he didn't do that. But, even if he did, are you saying games for children should result in fatal responses?
I'm saying that the police response was very reasonable. No children that I know, or ever knew, were hanging out at a park and waiving a gun around, such that bystanders began placing 9-1-1 calls. It's not a game anymore when you bring a lookalike firearm to a public location, continuously pull it out and point it at people. Guys of any age who engage in this type of behavior would expect to be involved in a shootout some time soon.
Btw, the police encountered a 5'7" 175 lb guy wearing a men's size XL jacket. They can't assume the person that they're dealing with is a child. I hope that none of this sounds like your idea of a children's game.
If you think someone has a gun you know what you don't do(unless you want to gun someone down)? Park near them and open fire as soon as you open your door.
I'm fine with the police driving wherever they want. Here's some much more important things that I think you probably shouldn't do:
1.) Remove the orange tip off a replica weapon, and then get all self-righteous when others cannot determine that it wasn't a real weapon.
2.) Don't practice mugging others at the local park. Don't approach passersby while brandishing a realistic weapon and issue threats. Don't expect that you can laugh it off and explain that it's not real to make things better. If you do, you should realize that a lot of panicked folks are going to call the police, and the police are going to roll up on you in red alert mode in a few minutes.
3.) When the cops roll up on you, at any distance, don't reach into your waistband and begin producing a realistic looking weapon.
Toy manufactures already account for that exact scenario. How? The bright usually orange piece attached to the end of the barrel. Those don't exactly come off easily. So if you're able to see the object in the kid's hand at all, You're gonna see that tip.
The tip was removed prior to the incident, allegedly by Tamir's friend, to whom the replica gun belonged. That was the problem in this case, and why prosecutors have so far been unable to bring charges against the officers involved: when you approach the subject and he begins pulling something that looks identical to a real weapon out of his waistband, you have only moments to make a decision and respond.
Big platforms are first and foremost focused on profits, if it was profitable to keep assholes around then you could be sure that they would be welcomed even if that made for a miserable experience for everyone else, that they instead keep getting the boot has nothing to do with morality but simply the fact that letting the assholes run wild stands to alienate and drive off the majority of users and advertisers, and since that's bad for profits out they go.
Parler became the most popular app several times between November and January, prior to its deplatforming. It would have been very profitable if allowed to reach critical mass, and contrary to your assertion, the disagreement would have been largely isolated instead of creating some kind of miserable experience for others. So I can't agree with you. Instead, it was an excellent example of what happens when the big tech monopoly is threatened. Also, several incidents in non-tech industries have occurred in recent years, such as the Gillette debacle, superhero comics layoffs, politically correct movies, and print newspapers. They all eschewed the profits in favor of politics.
The bill still suffers from the same point that Goldman made originally. It throws a bunch of big (somewhat random) ideas into one bill, with no clear explanation of what problem it's actually trying to solve.
The problem is that big tech has come to monopolize public discourse, and in the process become more powerful than government. It would be as if telephone companies decided to permanently disconnect customers who didn't agree with a certain morality code. And disconnection would be not just for using disagreeable language on the phone, but heard anywhere in public. The bill is attempting to fight back against the corporate morality police.
Do we all need to write into our AUPs that such-and-such only applies if you don't encourage insurrection? As we've pointed out a million times, content policy involves constant changes to your policies as new edge cases arise.
Correct. Attempting to create rules that only blocks the opposition without affecting those with whom you agree is the method by which the censorship occurs. If an edge case exists that's so complicated that a decision is extremely difficult, it probably means that you're attempting to justify the decision on personal grounds, and not principle.
The government getting high revenue is not necessarily a good thing, why do you assume it is?
I agree that it is not necessarily a good thing. Governments are addicted to spending, and higher tax intake will not ameliorate the situation. However, socialists typically frame a loss of tax revenue as a bad thing. Thus, a tax cut is considered to be detrimental. But what if companies could enjoy a lower tax rate, and it would also result in higher government revenue at the same time? This would be considered a win-win, regardless of where you stand on the spending issue.
So with that said, I do assume that the author is demonizing tax cuts. If the author would like to clarify, and state "AT&T receiving a tax break is bad because a tax break will likely lead to higher government revenue, and I would prefer to see the government starved of revenue instead", a position that I don't personally take, then I would take back my assumption.
the company got billions in tax breaks for doing effectively nothing.
Those tax breaks resulted in the government collecting more money in taxes than ever before, thanks to the Laffer Curve effect. Putting the tax breaks into place was a very smart move. Socialists get so jealous when that happens.
The police cannot distinguish a trap house from a safe house from the outside. Instead, they are getting warrants for a bunch of houses to which a dealer has been traced. It might be a home belonging to his brother, with a brick of cocaine and $20k cash in the basement. Or it might be an apartment where he was hanging out several nights a week, inviting friends over to watch sports together while he deals to anyone who visits. Or it might be the condo of a family friend who he visits regularly, and no drug dealing is involved. When the dealer is gone, the occupants are a married couple with two young kids.
The police don't know until after they kick in the door, whether it's the stash house, or an acquaintance in posession of a small personal quantity.
Why Are We Raiding Houses For Drug Quantities That Could Be Easily Flushed Down A Toilet?
Nowadays, dealers are using a combination of Trap Houses and Stash Houses. A location from where drugs are dealt is somewhat at risk for the dealer, in that often times the clientele aren't the most upstanding citizens. Consequently, the property is at risk for burglarization. So most of the drugs and money aren't stored there. Instead, they're kept at another location where substances are never sold, thus keeping most of the valuables safe.
Also, if police raid one house, and a dealer splits his time amongst 3 trap houses and one stash house, and he moves around, he now only has a 25% chance of being taken down in the drug raid. Not to mention that he might not get caught directly possessing all of the drugs and cash all at the same place. There's a good chance that he might just take the money and run.
To counter this strategy, the modern police tactic is to organize drug raids at multiple locations associated with a dealer, simultaneously. From the police standpoint, they don't know which one is the trap house, and which one is the stash house until after they complete the search.
As I myself chronicled in the comments of that story, we can see the reason why those people got banned: impersonation. But perhaps it is worth a refresher here.
The individuals that got banned realized that the names of many prominent political figures were not yet claimed, and so they began claiming and using them. One of the few rules established in the Community Guidelines agreement was that there be no impersonation accounts. The very first individual featured in the article, Thor Benson, admitted to attempting to register as the official account for The Federalist website, for which he got banned. Many other leftists who got banned were impersonating Trump.
So whenever someone claims they got banned on Parler, ask what they posted, and under what account name they posted it. It probably makes perfect sense, and it wasn't for mere disagreement.
In fact, nearly all of Parler's brand was built on it's (misleading) claim to not do content moderation. So, how the hell could Amazon claiming that Parler wasn't doing content moderation be defamatory when that's the very reputation that Parler itself tried to highlight for itself?!?
Parler was willing to engage in some censorship based on certain criteria, such as calling for violent acts to be committed. It wasn't willing to censor based on mere political disagreement. That part, no censorship for disagreement, is what it built its reputation upon. So the claim by AWS that Parler was not taking down the advocacy of violence seems defamatory, if that is in fact what Parler was doing.
...likely violates the Commerce Clause, which limits the states' ability to pass laws that regulate "interstate" commerce. It seems like if this kind of law is being written, it should be a federal law, rather than a state one.
Currently, many states have regulations on the books in the area of finance which impact how entities from other states may engage in commerce within their state. Although it may be possible for a federal law to be crafted which could override a state law, the wording would need to be carefully crafted to actually prohibit greater protections enacted by individual states.
A fact, actually, that Illinois lawmakers should damned well be aware of. So, this is either grandstanding to accomplish nothing, or it's an admission that Illinois has elected incompetent buffoons to its state government.... Neither conclusion is particularly encouraging.
If it's any consolation, I'll reminded everyone of the congressman Hank Johnson / Guam capsizing incident. I'm just saying that it IS possible that an elected official could be so unaware. You are likely overestimating lawmakers.
"it should come across as half-joking." And later in the same document: "The unindoctrinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not."
It's getting worse than the moderators not having enough time to review compared to the workload. Instead, the trolls are attempting to blur the line. With the big tech oligarchs wound up so tight, they're extra susceptible accidentally attempting to fact-check a piece of satire. And those sorts of events, when they succeed, typically earn the trolls even more attention.
Unfortunately, they've found a weakness in the system that can't be solved easily by simply having more time to examine the subject matter.
The terms "misinformation and hate" simply means that you disagree. Allowing people to hold a different viewpoint is not bending over backwards to create a special rule.
That will not solve the problem, it will only create a lot of local monopolies that will gradually reassemble themselves into the next AT&T.
They should still be broken up. It will likely result in less political lobbying dollars to try and maintain the laws on the books that favor monopolies. Also, any competition that occurs until a monopoly reforms will be welcome. If you want to take other steps in addition to this, that's fine, but breaking them up the first step in the right direction.
On the post: What I Hope Tech CEOs Will Tell Congress: 'We're Not Neutral'
Re: Yes, WE KNOW, CORPORATISTS LIED UNTIL GAINED POWER.
Don't tell it to the politicians. Tell it to THE USERS. Tell the users that you are editorializing. Tell the users that you are picking winners and losers. Be honest that you are actively hiding opinions with which you disagree. Inform everyone that your algorithm is biased, not to display relevant results, but to push an agenda. Just be straightforward and honest with your own customers, not with a bunch of useless politicians.
On the post: Sharyl Attkisson Lawsuit Against Rod Rosenstein Claiming She Was Hacked By Government Tossed
Shallow Excuse
I've never bought the "I'm too smart to have committed this crime" argument. Most people make an occasional mistake.
On the post: Cop's Lies About A Traffic Stop Are Exposed By A Home Security Camera Located Across The Street
More Then Deference
I say that for some of them, they develop a superiority complex. They may believe that they are judge, jury, and executioner. The subject in this case saw a police car following him, so he stopped his vehicle to see what was the matter. This action probably short-circuited whatever the cop was planning on doing, so it's onto Plan B: deliver some "punishment" anyhow.
Except that the cop got caught on camera and lost his job. Good riddance.
On the post: Appeals Court Decision Shows The Cleveland PD Cares More About Being Lied To Than About Officers Killing Children
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm saying that the police response was very reasonable. No children that I know, or ever knew, were hanging out at a park and waiving a gun around, such that bystanders began placing 9-1-1 calls. It's not a game anymore when you bring a lookalike firearm to a public location, continuously pull it out and point it at people. Guys of any age who engage in this type of behavior would expect to be involved in a shootout some time soon.
Btw, the police encountered a 5'7" 175 lb guy wearing a men's size XL jacket. They can't assume the person that they're dealing with is a child. I hope that none of this sounds like your idea of a children's game.
On the post: Appeals Court Decision Shows The Cleveland PD Cares More About Being Lied To Than About Officers Killing Children
Re: Re: Re:
I'm fine with the police driving wherever they want. Here's some much more important things that I think you probably shouldn't do:
1.) Remove the orange tip off a replica weapon, and then get all self-righteous when others cannot determine that it wasn't a real weapon.
2.) Don't practice mugging others at the local park. Don't approach passersby while brandishing a realistic weapon and issue threats. Don't expect that you can laugh it off and explain that it's not real to make things better. If you do, you should realize that a lot of panicked folks are going to call the police, and the police are going to roll up on you in red alert mode in a few minutes.
3.) When the cops roll up on you, at any distance, don't reach into your waistband and begin producing a realistic looking weapon.
On the post: Appeals Court Decision Shows The Cleveland PD Cares More About Being Lied To Than About Officers Killing Children
Re:
The tip was removed prior to the incident, allegedly by Tamir's friend, to whom the replica gun belonged. That was the problem in this case, and why prosecutors have so far been unable to bring charges against the officers involved: when you approach the subject and he begins pulling something that looks identical to a real weapon out of his waistband, you have only moments to make a decision and respond.
On the post: PACT Act Is Back: Bipartisan Section 230 'Reform' Bill Remains Mistargeted And Destructive
Re:
The big tech social media companies that are affected by section 230 are platforms, not publishers.
On the post: PACT Act Is Back: Bipartisan Section 230 'Reform' Bill Remains Mistargeted And Destructive
Re: Re: Re: One-Sided
Parler became the most popular app several times between November and January, prior to its deplatforming. It would have been very profitable if allowed to reach critical mass, and contrary to your assertion, the disagreement would have been largely isolated instead of creating some kind of miserable experience for others. So I can't agree with you. Instead, it was an excellent example of what happens when the big tech monopoly is threatened. Also, several incidents in non-tech industries have occurred in recent years, such as the Gillette debacle, superhero comics layoffs, politically correct movies, and print newspapers. They all eschewed the profits in favor of politics.
There's even a saying: "Get woke, go broke".
On the post: PACT Act Is Back: Bipartisan Section 230 'Reform' Bill Remains Mistargeted And Destructive
One-Sided
The problem is that big tech has come to monopolize public discourse, and in the process become more powerful than government. It would be as if telephone companies decided to permanently disconnect customers who didn't agree with a certain morality code. And disconnection would be not just for using disagreeable language on the phone, but heard anywhere in public. The bill is attempting to fight back against the corporate morality police.
Correct. Attempting to create rules that only blocks the opposition without affecting those with whom you agree is the method by which the censorship occurs. If an edge case exists that's so complicated that a decision is extremely difficult, it probably means that you're attempting to justify the decision on personal grounds, and not principle.
On the post: SEC Sues AT&T For Leaking Info To Analysts To Cover Up Drooping Smartphone Sales
Re: Re: Record High Revenue
I agree that it is not necessarily a good thing. Governments are addicted to spending, and higher tax intake will not ameliorate the situation. However, socialists typically frame a loss of tax revenue as a bad thing. Thus, a tax cut is considered to be detrimental. But what if companies could enjoy a lower tax rate, and it would also result in higher government revenue at the same time? This would be considered a win-win, regardless of where you stand on the spending issue.
So with that said, I do assume that the author is demonizing tax cuts. If the author would like to clarify, and state "AT&T receiving a tax break is bad because a tax break will likely lead to higher government revenue, and I would prefer to see the government starved of revenue instead", a position that I don't personally take, then I would take back my assumption.
On the post: SEC Sues AT&T For Leaking Info To Analysts To Cover Up Drooping Smartphone Sales
Record High Revenue
Those tax breaks resulted in the government collecting more money in taxes than ever before, thanks to the Laffer Curve effect. Putting the tax breaks into place was a very smart move. Socialists get so jealous when that happens.
On the post: John Oliver On Drug Raids: Why Are We Raiding Houses For Drug Quantities That Could Be Easily Flushed Down A Toilet?
Re: Re: A Fair Question
The police cannot distinguish a trap house from a safe house from the outside. Instead, they are getting warrants for a bunch of houses to which a dealer has been traced. It might be a home belonging to his brother, with a brick of cocaine and $20k cash in the basement. Or it might be an apartment where he was hanging out several nights a week, inviting friends over to watch sports together while he deals to anyone who visits. Or it might be the condo of a family friend who he visits regularly, and no drug dealing is involved. When the dealer is gone, the occupants are a married couple with two young kids.
The police don't know until after they kick in the door, whether it's the stash house, or an acquaintance in posession of a small personal quantity.
On the post: John Oliver On Drug Raids: Why Are We Raiding Houses For Drug Quantities That Could Be Easily Flushed Down A Toilet?
A Fair Question
Nowadays, dealers are using a combination of Trap Houses and Stash Houses. A location from where drugs are dealt is somewhat at risk for the dealer, in that often times the clientele aren't the most upstanding citizens. Consequently, the property is at risk for burglarization. So most of the drugs and money aren't stored there. Instead, they're kept at another location where substances are never sold, thus keeping most of the valuables safe.
Also, if police raid one house, and a dealer splits his time amongst 3 trap houses and one stash house, and he moves around, he now only has a 25% chance of being taken down in the drug raid. Not to mention that he might not get caught directly possessing all of the drugs and cash all at the same place. There's a good chance that he might just take the money and run.
To counter this strategy, the modern police tactic is to organize drug raids at multiple locations associated with a dealer, simultaneously. From the police standpoint, they don't know which one is the trap house, and which one is the stash house until after they complete the search.
On the post: Parler Drops Its Loser Of A Lawsuit Against Amazon In Federal Court, Files Equally Dumb New Lawsuit In State Court
Re: Re: Remember, disagreement is not violence
As I myself chronicled in the comments of that story, we can see the reason why those people got banned: impersonation. But perhaps it is worth a refresher here.
The individuals that got banned realized that the names of many prominent political figures were not yet claimed, and so they began claiming and using them. One of the few rules established in the Community Guidelines agreement was that there be no impersonation accounts. The very first individual featured in the article, Thor Benson, admitted to attempting to register as the official account for The Federalist website, for which he got banned. Many other leftists who got banned were impersonating Trump.
So whenever someone claims they got banned on Parler, ask what they posted, and under what account name they posted it. It probably makes perfect sense, and it wasn't for mere disagreement.
On the post: Parler Drops Its Loser Of A Lawsuit Against Amazon In Federal Court, Files Equally Dumb New Lawsuit In State Court
Remember, disagreement is not violence
Parler was willing to engage in some censorship based on certain criteria, such as calling for violent acts to be committed. It wasn't willing to censor based on mere political disagreement. That part, no censorship for disagreement, is what it built its reputation upon. So the claim by AWS that Parler was not taking down the advocacy of violence seems defamatory, if that is in fact what Parler was doing.
On the post: Arizona Moves Forward With Law To Force Google & Apple To Open Up Payments In App Stores
Abscence
Currently, many states have regulations on the books in the area of finance which impact how entities from other states may engage in commerce within their state. Although it may be possible for a federal law to be crafted which could override a state law, the wording would need to be carefully crafted to actually prohibit greater protections enacted by individual states.
On the post: Illinois Lawmaker Proposes Unconstitutional Ban Of 'GTA' In Response To Carjackings
Too Much Credit
If it's any consolation, I'll reminded everyone of the congressman Hank Johnson / Guam capsizing incident. I'm just saying that it IS possible that an elected official could be so unaware. You are likely overestimating lawmakers.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Recent Examples Of Misunderstanding Context
Loosen Up A Little
It's getting worse than the moderators not having enough time to review compared to the workload. Instead, the trolls are attempting to blur the line. With the big tech oligarchs wound up so tight, they're extra susceptible accidentally attempting to fact-check a piece of satire. And those sorts of events, when they succeed, typically earn the trolls even more attention.
Unfortunately, they've found a weakness in the system that can't be solved easily by simply having more time to examine the subject matter.
On the post: Yet Another Story Shows How Facebook Bent Over Backwards To Put In Place Different Rules For Conservatives
Thanks for not being the Gestapo, I guess?
The terms "misinformation and hate" simply means that you disagree. Allowing people to hold a different viewpoint is not bending over backwards to create a special rule.
On the post: A 90 Year Old Shouldn't Have To Buy A $10,000 Ad Just To Get AT&T To Upgrade His Shitty DSL Line
Re: Re: Scary!
They should still be broken up. It will likely result in less political lobbying dollars to try and maintain the laws on the books that favor monopolies. Also, any competition that occurs until a monopoly reforms will be welcome. If you want to take other steps in addition to this, that's fine, but breaking them up the first step in the right direction.
Next >>