'That's bad for our bottom line so no, no money for you.'
Throwing money at the problem of lousy(or non-existent) internet access without admitting to and addressing the reason why it's in that state is like applying a fresh coat of paint to a dam that's bursting at the seams. Sure it looks like you're Doing Something and the resulting mess will look slightly better but you're not actually doing anything about the real problem.
On a more specific note bloody hell talk about a conflict of interest allowing the major ISP's to challenge grant requests like this, why would they ever not challenge a request if they thought they could get away with it since the result is them getting more money and less competition?
Strive to improve things and you might lose, give up and treat that goal as a lost cause and you already have.
As bad as things might seem to be at times it's still important to push on and try to, if not improve things then at least slow down the downward spiral, always keeping in mind that history shows just because things are bad now doesn't mean they're destined to stay that way and sometimes enough people refusing to accept the current course is enough to shift what might have seemed an unstoppable force out of the way.
At this point he is practically begging the state systems to be hacked because by repeatedly asserting the people properly informing the state of a vulnerability are 'hackers' he is ensuring that no white-hat will ever do that again, and if they aren't telling the state that they screwed up then those with less stellar motives will be all over the next vulnerability and the state will only learn about it after the fact.
This highlights quite nicely why police are so often so vehemently opposed to transparency, it show just how corrupt and criminal they are from top to bottom and how desperately the whole system needs a reset and to start from scratch.
Sometimes it's malice, sometimes it's just stupidity
Entirely possible I suppose, with how much gutting or removing 230 stands to benefit Facebook(among others) it's all too easy to think that those arguing against the law are doing so because they want to help the company for whatever reason, but at the same time it's also quite possible that he's simply letting his hatred for the company blind him to how much he's dancing to their tune and barring some evidence to the contrary that would probably be the more reasonable assumption at the moment.
Re: Re: 'Oh no, not the bramble patch Mr Baker' said the Faceboo
... wow is he stuck in and refusing to admit to being wrong if that's his excuse for why he's not doing them a huge favor here.
Whether a full repeal or a 'reform' that turns the law into a useless one(and I've yet to see any that wouldn't do that, including his) the fact remains that Facebook is in favor of gutting the law, which should tell the people who are trying to 'get' Facebook for whatever reason that undermining 230 is not the way to do it.
So a senator wants to ask questions, this is fine by me. As long as she doesn't forcefully compels answers, it's just free speech, even with an official letterhead.
It makes a world of difference who's asking and in what capacity. There's a big difference between your neighbor asking where you were last night while in casual clothes and a cop in uniform asking that question, even if they might be the same person. You yourself acknowledge that in your very next sentence when you say you'd have a problem if these questions were asked of a smaller company.
'Since you clearly forgot all about it here's a few books'
Though I know they'd never do it it would be all sorts of hilarious if Facebook's response to all of that grandstanding was simply to publicly offer her and the other senators a refresher course on the first amendment, something they clearly are in dire need of.
'Oh no, not the bramble patch Mr Baker' said the Facebook
Setting aside the incredibly short-sighted spitefulness of trying to gut a law that applies to everyone just because you want to hurt one platform Facebook is in favor of 230 'reform'.
When the platform you are trying to take out is on your side regarding a law being changed maybe you should consider whether you are threatening them or threatening their competitors with your suggestions.
'Wasteful spending like... giving it to Comcast and co?'
Oh the gross dishonesty of telecom industry stooges claiming that they are just super-super worried about wasting taxpayer dollars on community broadband efforts rather then throwing it at the industries who own them and have a record of taking the money and doing the absolute minimum they think they can get away with and pocketing the rest.
If the concern is really about avoiding 'wasteful subsidization' then one side of that equation has shown itself to be vastly more wasteful than the other and as such they should be the last companies getting any of that money.
'Also slamming your hand in a door is bad, don't do that.'
Democrats really need to have fun exploiting that petty spite and make 'Not repeatedly punching yourself in the crotch' a party platform, I have absolutely no doubt that a higher-than-zero number of republicans would take that 'challenge'.
Also, why do people do this? Like, seriously, I get that bigots will be bigots, often openly, that people often misjudge how anonymous or private their communications are, and that people do stupid stuff all the time (especially when they think they won’t get caught or won’t get punished for it), but I am trying to figure out why anyone would decide to spray-paint a swastika on someone’s vehicle even if they think they can get away with it. What is even the point of doing that?
Bigotry-fueled spite and cruelty backed by a well founded belief that such an action would result in a slap on the wrist at worst would be the first explanations that come to mind. That said belief happened to be wrong this time doesn't change the fact that it was apparently based upon very solid evidence that the department was willing to overlook way worse that just some spray-paint in the past.
Nah, when I'm an ass to people I try to limit it to those that have shown they deserve it, and why bring in others when you can have all the fun yourself?
On the post: Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests
'That's bad for our bottom line so no, no money for you.'
Throwing money at the problem of lousy(or non-existent) internet access without admitting to and addressing the reason why it's in that state is like applying a fresh coat of paint to a dam that's bursting at the seams. Sure it looks like you're Doing Something and the resulting mess will look slightly better but you're not actually doing anything about the real problem.
On a more specific note bloody hell talk about a conflict of interest allowing the major ISP's to challenge grant requests like this, why would they ever not challenge a request if they thought they could get away with it since the result is them getting more money and less competition?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt
Re: Completing the quote
And here I'd been thinking that was a typo from the original comment, thanks for correcting that misconception.
On the post: Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers
Re:
Ah yes, I forgot that there's a specific name now for plague rats that die from their stupidity, good catch.
On the post: New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path
Maybe vs Will
Strive to improve things and you might lose, give up and treat that goal as a lost cause and you already have.
As bad as things might seem to be at times it's still important to push on and try to, if not improve things then at least slow down the downward spiral, always keeping in mind that history shows just because things are bad now doesn't mean they're destined to stay that way and sometimes enough people refusing to accept the current course is enough to shift what might have seemed an unstoppable force out of the way.
On the post: Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'My foot has always had a gunshot wound!'
Darwin Awards, Darwin Awards everywhere...
On the post: Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers
'My foot has always had a gunshot wound!'
It is so disturbing how so many people see and treat 'being able to admit to being wrong' as a sign of weakness rather than maturity.
On the post: Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers
'Why didn't anyone tell us?!'
At this point he is practically begging the state systems to be hacked because by repeatedly asserting the people properly informing the state of a vulnerability are 'hackers' he is ensuring that no white-hat will ever do that again, and if they aren't telling the state that they screwed up then those with less stellar motives will be all over the next vulnerability and the state will only learn about it after the fact.
On the post: DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back
It's just a few bad orchards
This highlights quite nicely why police are so often so vehemently opposed to transparency, it show just how corrupt and criminal they are from top to bottom and how desperately the whole system needs a reset and to start from scratch.
On the post: Those Who Don't Understand Section 230 Are Doomed To Repeal It
Sometimes it's malice, sometimes it's just stupidity
Entirely possible I suppose, with how much gutting or removing 230 stands to benefit Facebook(among others) it's all too easy to think that those arguing against the law are doing so because they want to help the company for whatever reason, but at the same time it's also quite possible that he's simply letting his hatred for the company blind him to how much he's dancing to their tune and barring some evidence to the contrary that would probably be the more reasonable assumption at the moment.
On the post: Indian Gov't Orders YouTube To Block 20 Channels For 'Blasphemy' And 'Impinging On National Security'
Re:
Unlimited cosmic power!... itty bitty fragile ego.
On the post: Those Who Don't Understand Section 230 Are Doomed To Repeal It
Re: Re: 'Oh no, not the bramble patch Mr Baker' said the Faceboo
... wow is he stuck in and refusing to admit to being wrong if that's his excuse for why he's not doing them a huge favor here.
Whether a full repeal or a 'reform' that turns the law into a useless one(and I've yet to see any that wouldn't do that, including his) the fact remains that Facebook is in favor of gutting the law, which should tell the people who are trying to 'get' Facebook for whatever reason that undermining 230 is not the way to do it.
On the post: Klobuchar's Silly Letter To Facebook Raises 1st Amendment Issues And Only Gives Ammo To Misinfo Peddlers That Facebook Is A State Actor
Re:
So a senator wants to ask questions, this is fine by me. As long as she doesn't forcefully compels answers, it's just free speech, even with an official letterhead.
It makes a world of difference who's asking and in what capacity. There's a big difference between your neighbor asking where you were last night while in casual clothes and a cop in uniform asking that question, even if they might be the same person. You yourself acknowledge that in your very next sentence when you say you'd have a problem if these questions were asked of a smaller company.
On the post: Klobuchar's Silly Letter To Facebook Raises 1st Amendment Issues And Only Gives Ammo To Misinfo Peddlers That Facebook Is A State Actor
'Since you clearly forgot all about it here's a few books'
Though I know they'd never do it it would be all sorts of hilarious if Facebook's response to all of that grandstanding was simply to publicly offer her and the other senators a refresher course on the first amendment, something they clearly are in dire need of.
On the post: Those Who Don't Understand Section 230 Are Doomed To Repeal It
'Oh no, not the bramble patch Mr Baker' said the Facebook
Setting aside the incredibly short-sighted spitefulness of trying to gut a law that applies to everyone just because you want to hurt one platform Facebook is in favor of 230 'reform'.
When the platform you are trying to take out is on your side regarding a law being changed maybe you should consider whether you are threatening them or threatening their competitors with your suggestions.
On the post: Weeks After Blasting Twitter For 'Strangling Free Expression' GETTR Bans The Term 'Groyper' In Effort To Stop White Nationalist Spam
Sometimes silence is an answer itself
Unfortunately for him his very notable silence every time the question is asked provides his answer loud and clear to everyone watching regardless.
[Citation Needed]: Not just a great way to shut certain people up but also an easy way to provide the answers they don't want to.
On the post: House Republicans Don't Want Infrastructure Money Going Toward Broadband Competition
'Wasteful spending like... giving it to Comcast and co?'
Oh the gross dishonesty of telecom industry stooges claiming that they are just super-super worried about wasting taxpayer dollars on community broadband efforts rather then throwing it at the industries who own them and have a record of taking the money and doing the absolute minimum they think they can get away with and pocketing the rest.
If the concern is really about avoiding 'wasteful subsidization' then one side of that equation has shown itself to be vastly more wasteful than the other and as such they should be the last companies getting any of that money.
On the post: Hey The North Face! When You Said Sending Us A Bogus Trademark Threat Was A Mistake, We Believed You; So Why Did You Do It Again?
Re: Re:
Not that I would put such behavior past EA but you have a source for that claim?
On the post: 3 Out Of 4 Americans Support Community Broadband, Yet 19 States Still Ban Or Hinder Such Networks
'Also slamming your hand in a door is bad, don't do that.'
Democrats really need to have fun exploiting that petty spite and make 'Not repeatedly punching yourself in the crotch' a party platform, I have absolutely no doubt that a higher-than-zero number of republicans would take that 'challenge'.
On the post: California Police Officers' Bigoted Text Messages Have Just Undone Dozens Of Felony Cases
Re: Why spray-paint?
Also, why do people do this? Like, seriously, I get that bigots will be bigots, often openly, that people often misjudge how anonymous or private their communications are, and that people do stupid stuff all the time (especially when they think they won’t get caught or won’t get punished for it), but I am trying to figure out why anyone would decide to spray-paint a swastika on someone’s vehicle even if they think they can get away with it. What is even the point of doing that?
Bigotry-fueled spite and cruelty backed by a well founded belief that such an action would result in a slap on the wrist at worst would be the first explanations that come to mind. That said belief happened to be wrong this time doesn't change the fact that it was apparently based upon very solid evidence that the department was willing to overlook way worse that just some spray-paint in the past.
On the post: Weeks After Blasting Twitter For 'Strangling Free Expression' GETTR Bans The Term 'Groyper' In Effort To Stop White Nationalist Spam
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, when I'm an ass to people I try to limit it to those that have shown they deserve it, and why bring in others when you can have all the fun yourself?
Next >>