Technically, that would mean that the law is in conflict with itself. By paying for Australian news links and giving them advanced notice, that is discriminating against non-Australian news sources.
Wow. That is… amazing! Especially given the short timeframe they had. I was hoping it’d be something to do with The Great Gatsby, but I never expected this! Awesome!
Who truly needs to get a life? The “nerds” off on their own enjoying their thing and not bothering anyone? Or the ones who feel the need to butt in on something they claim to have no interest in just to tell those “nerds” that “no one cares” or to “get a life”?
Oh, absolutely. I express no opinion on whether or not they should eliminate the filibuster. I’m merely pointing out that eliminating the filibuster would make it easier to pass a bill that would eliminate or change §230 the same way it would make it easier to pass any bill. Whether that’s an acceptable trade-off or not is another question entirely that I have no interest in addressing.
Section 230 was actually an independent bipartisan approach from the rest, and the Democrats and Republicans are so diametrically and fundamentally opposed to each other on how §230 should be changed that I doubt that there’d be enough bipartisan support on this.
Given the sheer amount of evidence proving Dominion and Smartmatic right on these claims, I’d say it’s highly unlikely that anything unfortunate would come out of discovery for them.
You’re taking that out of context. In context, the article clearly means “to fix” as in “to mend; to ensure it works as it’s supposed to”, not as in “to rig; to ensure a specific result through unlawful or rule-breaking means”. Everything specific in the article is about ensuring the accuracy, integrity, verifiability, and lawfulness of the election process.
Unless you have a specific statement from the article that unequivocally says that the election was rigged to ensure a specific outcome, it’s not evidence that supports your claims.
Also, let’s say there was such an effort made, there is evidence that it had no real effect on the results.
A bunch of the asked-for damages are punitive rather than remedial in nature. The amount of damage suffered is not directly involved in that part of the calculation.
Generally, the asked-for punishment is greatly in excess of what the plaintiff(s) expects to get as, barring sanctionable misconduct during the lawsuit by the defendant(s), whatever the plaintiff(s) ask for is almost always the absolute maximum that they’ll get.
That said, if the prohibition was limited to the defamation standards and the punishment was limited to disqualification from office or something, there might have been something to it.
Piracy harms indies horribly. Many get 100 percent of their sales and rely on that to eke out a living.
The latter statement is true, but you need to assume that almost no pirates ever go through the legal route, which is demonstrably false.
Stealing is never right.
True, but piracy isn’t stealing, so that’s irrelevant.
Don't like it? Don't read it don't buy it.
How will I know whether or not I will like it if I can’t try it? There are lots of stuff I bought and love that I would not have purchased if I had not gotten a free trial, demo, or excerpt to see if I’d like it. And not all products offer such things.
Profiting from crime is wrong as those who do are taking risks law-abiding people refuse to.
Taking risks that law-abiding people normally wouldn’t isn’t necessarily wrong.
Morality is not equal to lawfulness.
Not all pirates profit from piracy.
Piracy is not always a crime, even if it is unlawful.
I honestly think that Anderson’s lawyer is incompetent. Any lawyer worth their salt knows that factual disputes are rarely addressed in appellate courts, especially in a motion for summary judgement or dismissal. The facts are almost always either deferred to the lower court or jury (on appeal) or, on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgement, weighed in favor of the non-moving party where there is any dispute to be had.
Also, if there is video evidence in the pleadings, the facts are not going to be resolved in your favor as a movant even in the lower court.
You’re missing their point, which has nothing to do with whether or not they are a racist or a bigot. It’s solely a disagreement with your definitions of racism and bigotry. In particular, recognizing that there are different races (read: skin color and ethnicity) is not racist; attributing internal and social characteristics to an entire race or putting one race above or below others is racism. Furthermore, racism is a subset of bigotry, so it’s impossible, by definition, to be racist and not a bigot at the same time.
Also, your question about which is greater doesn’t really have one single, simple answer, as belied by your comparison.
That is irrelevant to the case at hand, which is about roommates sharing a home, not selling or renting out a house, land, or apartment to customers. The Ninth Circuit explicitly stated that there is a distinction there.
Yeah, considering the fact that Democrats and Republicans want completely different and incompatible goals (Democrats want to have intermediaries liable for third-party content they leave up and for not moderating sufficiently but not liable for successfully removing objectionable content; Republicans want immunity for third-party content but want less moderation by companies and, thus, want to remove immunity for moderation decisions), I can’t really see any way to accomplish both goals. Especially since most current congresspeople are not willing to abolish §230 but just want to amend it.
Having the filibuster makes it more difficult to pass new laws or repeal or amend existing laws. Therefore, abolishing the filibuster would make it easier, and thus more likely, for the Senate to abolish §230.
On the post: The Bizarre Reaction To Facebook's Decision To Get Out Of The News Business In Australia
Re:
Technically, that would mean that the law is in conflict with itself. By paying for Australian news links and giving them advanced notice, that is discriminating against non-Australian news sources.
On the post: Game Jam Winner Spotlight: ~THE GREAT GATSBY~
Wow. That is… amazing! Especially given the short timeframe they had. I was hoping it’d be something to do with The Great Gatsby, but I never expected this! Awesome!
On the post: Game Jam Winner Spotlight: ~THE GREAT GATSBY~
Re:
Who truly needs to get a life? The “nerds” off on their own enjoying their thing and not bothering anyone? Or the ones who feel the need to butt in on something they claim to have no interest in just to tell those “nerds” that “no one cares” or to “get a life”?
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Stupid Opinion
You’re a month late.
On the post: Section 230 Lets Tech Fix Content Moderation Issues. Congress Should Respect That
Re:
Oh, absolutely. I express no opinion on whether or not they should eliminate the filibuster. I’m merely pointing out that eliminating the filibuster would make it easier to pass a bill that would eliminate or change §230 the same way it would make it easier to pass any bill. Whether that’s an acceptable trade-off or not is another question entirely that I have no interest in addressing.
On the post: Now It's The Democrats Turn To Destroy The Open Internet: Mark Warner's 230 Reform Bill Is A Dumpster Fire Of Cluelessness
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Section 230 was actually an independent bipartisan approach from the rest, and the Democrats and Republicans are so diametrically and fundamentally opposed to each other on how §230 should be changed that I doubt that there’d be enough bipartisan support on this.
On the post: Smartmatic Sues Two Trump Lawyers And Three Fox News Hosts For $2.7 Billion-Worth Of Defamation
Re: The Kraken
Given the sheer amount of evidence proving Dominion and Smartmatic right on these claims, I’d say it’s highly unlikely that anything unfortunate would come out of discovery for them.
On the post: Smartmatic Sues Two Trump Lawyers And Three Fox News Hosts For $2.7 Billion-Worth Of Defamation
Re: Re:
You’re taking that out of context. In context, the article clearly means “to fix” as in “to mend; to ensure it works as it’s supposed to”, not as in “to rig; to ensure a specific result through unlawful or rule-breaking means”. Everything specific in the article is about ensuring the accuracy, integrity, verifiability, and lawfulness of the election process.
Unless you have a specific statement from the article that unequivocally says that the election was rigged to ensure a specific outcome, it’s not evidence that supports your claims.
Also, let’s say there was such an effort made, there is evidence that it had no real effect on the results.
On the post: Smartmatic Sues Two Trump Lawyers And Three Fox News Hosts For $2.7 Billion-Worth Of Defamation
Re: Re: but does this have merit?
A bunch of the asked-for damages are punitive rather than remedial in nature. The amount of damage suffered is not directly involved in that part of the calculation.
On the post: No, Getting Rid Of Anonymity Will Not Fix Social Media; It Will Cause More Problems
Re: Ohio Election Code
Yeah, our legislators are idiots.
That said, if the prohibition was limited to the defamation standards and the punishment was limited to disqualification from office or something, there might have been something to it.
On the post: RIAA Launches Brand New Front Group Pretending To Represent Independent Artists
Re:
The latter statement is true, but you need to assume that almost no pirates ever go through the legal route, which is demonstrably false.
True, but piracy isn’t stealing, so that’s irrelevant.
How will I know whether or not I will like it if I can’t try it? There are lots of stuff I bought and love that I would not have purchased if I had not gotten a free trial, demo, or excerpt to see if I’d like it. And not all products offer such things.
Taking risks that law-abiding people normally wouldn’t isn’t necessarily wrong.
Morality is not equal to lawfulness.
Not all pirates profit from piracy.
On the post: RIAA Launches Brand New Front Group Pretending To Represent Independent Artists
Re:
Don’t they already exist?
On the post: RIAA Launches Brand New Front Group Pretending To Represent Independent Artists
Re:
That article has nothing to do with §230.
This article has nothing to do with §230.
Basically, no it doesn’t, and it’s also irrelevant.
On the post: Appeals Court Tells Lying Cop No 'Reasonable' Officer Would Think It's OK To Tear Gas Journalists For Performing Journalism
I honestly think that Anderson’s lawyer is incompetent. Any lawyer worth their salt knows that factual disputes are rarely addressed in appellate courts, especially in a motion for summary judgement or dismissal. The facts are almost always either deferred to the lower court or jury (on appeal) or, on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgement, weighed in favor of the non-moving party where there is any dispute to be had.
Also, if there is video evidence in the pleadings, the facts are not going to be resolved in your favor as a movant even in the lower court.
On the post: If We're Going To Talk About Discrimination In Online Ads, We Need To Talk About Roommates.com
Re: Re: Re: there's a difference tho
You’re missing their point, which has nothing to do with whether or not they are a racist or a bigot. It’s solely a disagreement with your definitions of racism and bigotry. In particular, recognizing that there are different races (read: skin color and ethnicity) is not racist; attributing internal and social characteristics to an entire race or putting one race above or below others is racism. Furthermore, racism is a subset of bigotry, so it’s impossible, by definition, to be racist and not a bigot at the same time.
Also, your question about which is greater doesn’t really have one single, simple answer, as belied by your comparison.
On the post: If We're Going To Talk About Discrimination In Online Ads, We Need To Talk About Roommates.com
Re: Re: Re: FSBO Model
That is irrelevant to the case at hand, which is about roommates sharing a home, not selling or renting out a house, land, or apartment to customers. The Ninth Circuit explicitly stated that there is a distinction there.
On the post: If We're Going To Talk About Discrimination In Online Ads, We Need To Talk About Roommates.com
Re: Re: Re: FSBO Model
“Close to a church” doesn’t demonstrate bias against anyone. It provides factual information about the location of the property.
On the post: Section 230 Lets Tech Fix Content Moderation Issues. Congress Should Respect That
Re: Re:
Yeah, considering the fact that Democrats and Republicans want completely different and incompatible goals (Democrats want to have intermediaries liable for third-party content they leave up and for not moderating sufficiently but not liable for successfully removing objectionable content; Republicans want immunity for third-party content but want less moderation by companies and, thus, want to remove immunity for moderation decisions), I can’t really see any way to accomplish both goals. Especially since most current congresspeople are not willing to abolish §230 but just want to amend it.
On the post: Section 230 Lets Tech Fix Content Moderation Issues. Congress Should Respect That
Re: Re: Re:
Having the filibuster makes it more difficult to pass new laws or repeal or amend existing laws. Therefore, abolishing the filibuster would make it easier, and thus more likely, for the Senate to abolish §230.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: Re: South Dakota, too
Since when is Florida “flyover country”? It’s got a pretty large population and is a major tourist destination.
Next >>