From an American standpoint, this really is the best compromise possible. I mean, if Poland loses all the way across the board and Art. 17 stands, most of the world will see even harsher restrictions on uploading, or to put it another way, restrictions on communicating whatever idea strikes your fancy at the moment. But without any filtering at all, the WWW will see lawsuits like never imagined before, from all of the copyright maximalists. ("Your filter isn't strong enough, it's not keeping everything down. We're suing you for facilitating infringement!")
So the hope would be that America can be dragged into a very similar scenario, where a C.M. must go to court EVERY TIME they want to take down a meme, or a satirical piece, or a critizism, etc. That puts the financial burden where it belongs, right back on the party desiring redress. Not to mention, lawyers like Biss et al will go broke, because thin-skinned dickheads won't be able to hire them to harass cow-themed Twitter feeds. That's a WIN right there!
I can't count the number of times I have asked somebody (Koby?) to point to specific instances ....
Sure you can count that high - it's "more than once". If you keep asking, you're just flapping your gums to hear your jaw muscles squeak, because the results just keep on being the same (i.e. no response at all). I'll take bets that you'll be struck by lightening before you get a verifiable answer.
Maybe it's time we just cut out the niceties and call them what they really are: Polutions. As in, they pollute the American way of life, and the way we govern ourselves. One wonders, why aren't the environmental groups all up in arms over these pollution-spewing assholes.....
The True American viewpoints, the Patriotic viewpoints, the (warning, heavy projection ahead) non-whiny, non-sniveling, trust-us-we're-more-equal-than-you viewpoints. Yeah, those viewpoints.
Or it could be (just could be, mind you) that the platforms have a heretofore-unknown Ignorance filter. If you prove that you can't learn from your peers, after a period of time you become fodder for the Ignorance filter. Seems to me that this would be just as logical an answer as any other for why certain (fill in the blank here) are getting first-hand experience with the word "consequences".
I'll take a moderate amount of guaranteed speed, please. This crap about "shared" bandwidth has to go.
That's the problem for everyone - sharing bandwidth can cause more than just dropped frames for a gamer, it can disrupt serious business transactions or school classes, and do it well beyond the the point of frustration. My view is that variable bandwidth ("up to Xmps") is better described as disruptable bandwidth. I'd almost hazard a guess that 50Mbps guaranteed at all times would be sufficient for many folks.
You're correct in that they aren't directly mentioned, but...
The Supremes declared long ago that corporations are persons for the sake of applicable portions of the Constitution and laws derived therefrom. Hence, those assertions you deny are indeed applicable.
When the only tool that you want to have in your box looks like legislation (to take away guns), then every problem starts to look like it's caused by guns.
In point of fact, when you are seeing what looks to you like a "gun problem", you are actually viewing a strong lack of education, and an even stronger lack of parental focus on teaching their kids right-vs-wrong, i.e. morals. IOW, the anti-gun crowd is focused so narrowly on the symptom that we should not be surprised that they never learned about cause-and-effect - they should be focusing on the idiots who never got a moral compass in the first place. Correct that problem, and we're golden.
America does NOT have a gun problem. Instead, it has an even more insidious issue... it has an idiot problem. Until that is solved, it won't matter what weapon is used (or if any is used at all), idiots will still clamor to be the poster boy of the month for post-natal abortion.
.... they will likely file a request for fees, but they are also likely not worth the cost of further litigation.
Tell me, when have you ever known a lawyer to walk away from money on the table???
And remember, if the court agrees with the fees requested, then if Uncle Roy refuses to pay up, he will only be compounding the final number of dollars that leave his bank account.
The fact is, they are no less open to anyone than we see on "the biggies". Different way to communicate, but nonetheless, they are still a viable means of exchanging ideas, etc.
Well, that would depend on how you define "society". If you mean the populace in general, then you're off by 8 or 10 years, give or take. If you meant the cognoscenti (computer users who had the patience to learn how to operate their stuff), then I'll agree with you.
I'll take bets that no one who has ever been admitted into #45's presence has ever even heard the words "Usenet" or "IRC", let alone can actually use either of them.
Sorry, but you must first pay your bill for reading your question, before we can answer it. And you might as well send in double that amount, so we don't have to bill you again for the answer.
The problem is social media .... is the new public space.
No, it's not. It's a shared private space, an entirely different thing altogether. If you insist on mixing up those two concepts, then you have only yourself to blame for all the Toll/Spam/Abuse clicks you keep getting.\
(Actually, social media is made up of many different private spaces, each of which has some degree of sharing. The control of the sharing varies from one private space to the next.)
It is really awesome how Juul is the whipping post for any and all vaping products that people used that caused harm. i
Juul, the 21st Century version of Kool-Aid. Even though it was Flavor-Aid that was used to kill over 900 people at Jonestown, Kool-Aid gets the rap. Why? Market familiarity. Juul's in the same boat. Ask anyone on the street that does not vape, and the only brand name they'll come up with is... you guessed it, Juul.
Juul did the same thing other companies have done, without anyone in gov actually stopping them, for decades...
No, it's not the same thing. Up until now, no one, big or small, has ever compromised a (rather, an alleged) scientific journal at this magnitude of fuckery. I'm quite certain that any such crap would've been exposed by now. Whether Juul is fighting a rear-guard action or otherwise, you simply don't pull shit like that and expect to check a box in the Winner column.
And what other companies have done is a non-starter, it's the old "what about" game, and that doesn't play well in Peoria. Stay focused, or those Red Herrings are gonna stink up your computer room.
Well, since the terms mask-holes and vax-holes have entered our lexicon, it shouldn't be too long before we see "Juul-holes". Otherwise, I think we're looking at "Juul-gate".
On the post: Top EU Court's Adviser Regrettably Fails To Recommend Throwing Out Upload Filters, But Does Say They Should Block Only "Identical" Or "Equivalent" Copies
Ya know....
From an American standpoint, this really is the best compromise possible. I mean, if Poland loses all the way across the board and Art. 17 stands, most of the world will see even harsher restrictions on uploading, or to put it another way, restrictions on communicating whatever idea strikes your fancy at the moment. But without any filtering at all, the WWW will see lawsuits like never imagined before, from all of the copyright maximalists. ("Your filter isn't strong enough, it's not keeping everything down. We're suing you for facilitating infringement!")
So the hope would be that America can be dragged into a very similar scenario, where a C.M. must go to court EVERY TIME they want to take down a meme, or a satirical piece, or a critizism, etc. That puts the financial burden where it belongs, right back on the party desiring redress. Not to mention, lawyers like Biss et al will go broke, because thin-skinned dickheads won't be able to hire them to harass cow-themed Twitter feeds. That's a WIN right there!
On the post: Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
Re: Re: England called, something about 'stealing from our histo
'Sfunny, I thought V did that all by himself. But what do I know....
On the post: Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
Re:
Sure you can count that high - it's "more than once". If you keep asking, you're just flapping your gums to hear your jaw muscles squeak, because the results just keep on being the same (i.e. no response at all). I'll take bets that you'll be struck by lightening before you get a verifiable answer.
Hell, make that struck twice.
On the post: Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
Re: Re:
Maybe it's time we just cut out the niceties and call them what they really are: Polutions. As in, they pollute the American way of life, and the way we govern ourselves. One wonders, why aren't the environmental groups all up in arms over these pollution-spewing assholes.....
On the post: Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians
Which viewpoints?
Oh, you know...
The True American viewpoints, the Patriotic viewpoints, the (warning, heavy projection ahead) non-whiny, non-sniveling, trust-us-we're-more-equal-than-you viewpoints. Yeah, those viewpoints.
Or it could be (just could be, mind you) that the platforms have a heretofore-unknown Ignorance filter. If you prove that you can't learn from your peers, after a period of time you become fodder for the Ignorance filter. Seems to me that this would be just as logical an answer as any other for why certain (fill in the blank here) are getting first-hand experience with the word "consequences".
On the post: Florida Tells Court: Actually, It's Section 230 That's Unconstitutional (Not Our Social Media Law)
Re: 'I know you are but what am I?', truly a timeless legal argu
T,ftfy
On the post: GAO Tells US Government Its Speed Definition For Broadband Sucks
I'll take a moderate amount of guaranteed speed, please. This crap about "shared" bandwidth has to go.
That's the problem for everyone - sharing bandwidth can cause more than just dropped frames for a gamer, it can disrupt serious business transactions or school classes, and do it well beyond the the point of frustration. My view is that variable bandwidth ("up to Xmps") is better described as disruptable bandwidth. I'd almost hazard a guess that 50Mbps guaranteed at all times would be sufficient for many folks.
On the post: Exactly Right: 'You're Not Entitled To A Platform, Boomer.'
Re: A couple of Koby-adjacent nit-picks
Not only precise, but accurate as well. There is a difference between the two words.
On the post: Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment
Re: Your assertions are utterly invalid.
You're correct in that they aren't directly mentioned, but...
The Supremes declared long ago that corporations are persons for the sake of applicable portions of the Constitution and laws derived therefrom. Hence, those assertions you deny are indeed applicable.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Says School Board Can't Boot People From Meetings Just Because It Doesn't Like What They're Saying
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the only tool that you want to have in your box looks like legislation (to take away guns), then every problem starts to look like it's caused by guns.
In point of fact, when you are seeing what looks to you like a "gun problem", you are actually viewing a strong lack of education, and an even stronger lack of parental focus on teaching their kids right-vs-wrong, i.e. morals. IOW, the anti-gun crowd is focused so narrowly on the symptom that we should not be surprised that they never learned about cause-and-effect - they should be focusing on the idiots who never got a moral compass in the first place. Correct that problem, and we're golden.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Says School Board Can't Boot People From Meetings Just Because It Doesn't Like What They're Saying
Re: Re:
America does NOT have a gun problem. Instead, it has an even more insidious issue... it has an idiot problem. Until that is solved, it won't matter what weapon is used (or if any is used at all), idiots will still clamor to be the poster boy of the month for post-natal abortion.
On the post: Court To Judge Roy Moore: You're Not Defamation-Proof, But This Contract You Signed Sure Is
Re: I don't understand
He has a Trademark on the whole name, "Judge" must be included whenever one is referring to him.
On the post: Court To Judge Roy Moore: You're Not Defamation-Proof, But This Contract You Signed Sure Is
Re: Re:
Tell me, when have you ever known a lawyer to walk away from money on the table???
And remember, if the court agrees with the fees requested, then if Uncle Roy refuses to pay up, he will only be compounding the final number of dollars that leave his bank account.
On the post: Florida
ManGovernor Wastes More Florida Taxpayer Money Appealing Ruling About His Unconstitutional Social Media LawSub-heading to that alternate headline:
Florida Lawmakers Bizarrely Regard The First Amendment As Damage To Their Alternate Reality
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
Re: Re: Social media
The fact is, they are no less open to anyone than we see on "the biggies". Different way to communicate, but nonetheless, they are still a viable means of exchanging ideas, etc.
On the post: Trump Notifies Attorney General He's Challenging The Constitutionality Of Section 230 On The Dumbest Grounds Possible
Re: Social media
Well, that would depend on how you define "society". If you mean the populace in general, then you're off by 8 or 10 years, give or take. If you meant the cognoscenti (computer users who had the patience to learn how to operate their stuff), then I'll agree with you.
I'll take bets that no one who has ever been admitted into #45's presence has ever even heard the words "Usenet" or "IRC", let alone can actually use either of them.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Chief Ferengi here...
Sorry, but you must first pay your bill for reading your question, before we can answer it. And you might as well send in double that amount, so we don't have to bill you again for the answer.
On the post: Why Do We So Quickly Blame The Internet And Anonymity For Things That Are Not About Anonymous People Online?
Re: Viewpoint
No, it's not. It's a shared private space, an entirely different thing altogether. If you insist on mixing up those two concepts, then you have only yourself to blame for all the Toll/Spam/Abuse clicks you keep getting.\
(Actually, social media is made up of many different private spaces, each of which has some degree of sharing. The control of the sharing varies from one private space to the next.)
On the post: Juul Rented A Scientific Journal For a Month To Spread Glorified Marketing
Re:
Juul, the 21st Century version of Kool-Aid. Even though it was Flavor-Aid that was used to kill over 900 people at Jonestown, Kool-Aid gets the rap. Why? Market familiarity. Juul's in the same boat. Ask anyone on the street that does not vape, and the only brand name they'll come up with is... you guessed it, Juul.
No, it's not the same thing. Up until now, no one, big or small, has ever compromised a (rather, an alleged) scientific journal at this magnitude of fuckery. I'm quite certain that any such crap would've been exposed by now. Whether Juul is fighting a rear-guard action or otherwise, you simply don't pull shit like that and expect to check a box in the Winner column.
And what other companies have done is a non-starter, it's the old "what about" game, and that doesn't play well in Peoria. Stay focused, or those Red Herrings are gonna stink up your computer room.
On the post: Juul Rented A Scientific Journal For a Month To Spread Glorified Marketing
Well, since the terms mask-holes and vax-holes have entered our lexicon, it shouldn't be too long before we see "Juul-holes". Otherwise, I think we're looking at "Juul-gate".
Next >>