Subjecting Disney+ to data caps is the concern. And I have seen no evidence Disney+ is exempted from data caps. Most people are just always on Wi-fi since the launch, because for some reason people aren't out and about right now, so AT&T's mobile data caps haven't been a concern. Some thing about a pandemic or something.
In a system that values property greater than lives and and looks at the value of lives almost exclusively in terms of their economic productivity, the destruction of property is a powerful message. It motivates business and property owners to call for change when they would otherwise ignore the issues. And, most importantly, it works, as history shows. Its the only thing that works.
So you explicitly Are requesting twitter cease enforcing the harassment clause within the TOS? Or That the clauses unenforceable? Could you cite statute or case law on that?
But that isn’t facebook selling your data. What they sold was a promise to display an ad to a random person that matches targeted categories. If you, the advertiser, use that purchase to harvest aggregate data and then combine that data set with other separate data sets to identify specific individuals, that isn’t facebook selling user’s data. It not what rules against sellibg personally identifying info are designed to prevent, because facebook can’t prevent you from tracking data from people who click through your own ad.
If you want to place an ad for a 25-45 male with a CIS interest, you go to face book and put in those parameters in an ad buy, and facebook places those ads. No data is going back to you in that transaction
If you are separately aggregating data on people coming to your site and cross referencing that data with aggregate data from other ad buyers to identify users, you collected that data. You didn’t buy it from facebook. Don’t hide your shitty practices of buying prop ads to harvest the data of customers coming to your website as facebook selling the data.
Part of his argument is that twitter, in reaction to the lawsuit, contacted him to determine if he was represented by council, and therefore he should be paid 25 MIllion because....twitter wanted to serve him with a motion as required by law?
Ignoring the strange conclusion, the rules of court require opposing attorneys to contact each other, rather than clients. Twitter sounds like they were making sure he was in fact not represented by council before serving him personally with legal documents as the court requires.
The Plaintiffs assertions that Twitter following the rules was a result of twitter acting in bad faith suggest that perhaps the plaintiff's other claims of bad faith on the part of twitter are not, indeed, bad faith, but rather twitter following the rules it has set out, rules the plaintiff had agreed to and then ignored. A lack of pleading of fact on the issue of bad faith action supports this conclusion, and plaintiffs further claims that content was not a factor in his ban, but rather his underlying beliefs, also supports this conclusion.
You are right, I drew a wider conclusion then you were making. i was talking about hardware communications protocols, not software. And the Bluetooth standard isn't a free standard. But it is an open one. My point being that since the HRM used an open communications standard, and app-neutral communications existed in the target market, there was no reason the HRM had to fail when a specific vendor stopped offering their app. I was drawing a similar philisophical point, and apologize for conflating it with yours.
Free software has been discussed in these pages before. And again, Mike's protocols not platforms approach covers exactly what you are saying. I know mike has argued for a broader philisophical platform than the focus on software, and I think he has effectively argued for the libre software solution even if he doesn't say the words because he is focused on broader approaches than just fix software. I've gotten the impression that he doesn't like software being under either copyright or patent. And during DMCA anti-circumvention discussions, the way proprietary software prevents you from owning the hardware is at the forefront. He is arguing for libre software, but perhaps not using those words, since they tie to a specific policy proposal. Mike seems to try to avoid specific policy proposals, generally talking in broader questions of goals and the way to move toward them, but let actual policy makers iron out policy. And really, Coming to the comments and saying "hey, you know, if these vendors used libre software it wouldn't matter!" its the most no shit sherlock kind of answer.
Given the Free software foundation has come up a number of times in techdirt hsitory, and the seeming longevity of techdirt's audiance, its not fair to believe people don't know who they are. We defend the concept against trolls on a regular basis as their failure to understand it is a common basis of attack.
Moreover, your original post didn't serve to introduce the concept to the audiance, only to say that the concept exists. You aren't going into either the nature or the ideology. So its a weird hill to die on that nobody is talking about it, since you really aren't either.
I have. Right here just because you haven't seen the suggestion, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
I admittedly don't remember if Techdirt has thrown up that flag specifically before. But it is the natural answer of how to build a internet enabled device without lock-in. Its also a natural extension of the [protocols not platforms solution(https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190825/21540442853/protocols-not-platforms-technologica l-approach-to-free-speech.shtml) Mike has been suggestiong for social media. Heck, several years ago Techdirt did an article on the way cloud storage failed to live up to its premise where Mike explicitly argues that cloud storage should have been about individually opwned cloud buckets linking into interoperable cloud services rather than proprietary services.
I think you just aren't reading. Techdirt may never have suggested it for this specific situation, but its a clean extension of everything they argue for.
You've missed the forest for the trees there my friend.
As used in this article, Landlord is being used to describe a property owner who extracts passive rents from the use of their property. This can, as you point out, describe most ways of extracting passive rents even when we aren't discussing land. But in the US landlords aren't nobility either, but we still call them landlords. In the same way, a property management company could be called property rental service, like a car rental service, but we've made artificial distinctions between the passive income generated by the exploitation of land versus transportation. Income generated by exploiting the use of property are described as rents.
The rhetorical point of calling them landlords is that while copyright holders claim they own property, they generally ascribe what they own as the content, rather than the rights to exploit the content. And when you describe income derived from those rights as rents and the holder as a landlord, you cast the lie to the claim that what they own is the content rather than the right to exploit the content in specific ways. Active Income is not generated from the content itself or its copyrights, but into the utilization of the content. Copyrights provide a passive rent income, taxing those who wish to utilize the content. The point of calling them landlords is not to suggest they are nobility who owns land, but to suggest they are rent seeking - having secured or developed some content (land) they now looking for rents for its use, rather than exploit the work directly.
Libertarians, while they hold a distinct political view, are quite small overall, and are most prominent as a wing of the Republican party, with libertarian thought pervading the Party and its politics. The Debates around the Obamacare repeal, specifically the difficulty reaching a republican consensus highlight the veins of libertarian thought.
More importantly, the article is about Richard Epstein, who is obstensibly libertarian. The arguemnets he is making are obstensibly libertarian. The AC was not speaking incorrectly.
The quoted line has nothing to do with Trump's awareness of the suit. Trump's campaign is a legally distinct entity from Trump himself, and therefore if the lawsuit goes long enough for discovery, document requests to trump himself may be limited in scope. Not because Trump was unaware of the lawsuit, but because his exposure may be limited to his interactions with his 2016 campaign and his 2020 campaign. The contested statements specify Trump Campaign Officials, so the campaign is the aggrieved party, and Trump's documents relating to himself personally or communications with non-campaign officials probably aren't in the scope. We may even see issues with Trump's communications with campaign officials by non-campaign funded means. As much as we would hope that the courts would recognize that Trump's web of overlapping orgs represents a way to dodge discovery of communications, it may be effective. And even if it isn't, any such discovery would represent months if not years of litigation before they were settled.
The alternative premise Mike draws is that the content of Buttigieg emails are crafted to appear as email users really want, but that Warren emails appear more 'promotional', as not-quite-spam, rather than providing special treatment to Buttigieg.
There are a number of ways to demonstrate either that gmail is providing special treatment to Buttigieg or that contents of these emails is a factor. For instance, Sending the contents of an allowed Buttigieg campaign email and a promotional Warren Campaign email from generic corporate emails could produce data on if the contents was a factor over the FROM header.
But Mike doesn't need to prove his thesis. He is only producing a reasonable alternative explanation. He is not saying "this is how it is". He is saying the conclusions drawn from The Markup are half baked. They have not proved the implication that Google has their finger on the scale any more than Mike has proven his case. And Mike's Alternative idea, that rather than a shadowy coder assigning political emails to different filters to benefit Pete Buttigieg the 2 younger candidates (Buttigeg and Yang) hired email marketers that understand how to get an email around Promotions makes a significant amount of sense. And if there are not hidden hands helping Buttigieg, it makes sense he has one of the highest SPAM rates.
The argument is not that "it's fine because we have a pro-conservative bias". The argument is that "The data does not back up a finding of anti-conservative bias." The argument being made only expresses that Prager U is not subject to some special level of scrutiny or censorship because it is conservative, because many high-profile left-aligned channels see higher levels of restricted videos than Prager U. The conclusion that this represents a pro-conservative bias is never reached by the article, and just as premature as claims of pro-liberal bias.
The point Techdirt has made time and time again is that the biases in YouTube's algorithms are unlikely to be based on a supposed political nature of content, but the ability to monetize the content. Never has the argument that politically motivated bias is okay been expressed.
if you look at the FIRST LINK techdirt provides, it is to the open access library, and all of the content in the open access library is CC0 based on the FAQ. They specifically don't include anything with outside copyright interests or the smithsonian otherwise does not fully own. I have no idea where you get your assertion that "there be much more in there with restrictions".
If you go to the collections search center as they recommend for advanced search capacity, there is indeed a ton more content, but one of the filters is to explictly limit results to CC0 content. (screenshot)
Re: As much as I want the location data to be private...
I'm not usre how the conclusion follows
IP has a number of issues. One is that it is not conclusive that they have captured the correct IP, another is a question of if the ISP has correctly identified the subscriber responsible. Given how much of my usage Comcast hallucinates into existence, i would not be surprised if they don't actually know 100%. Various factors, including the sharing of IPs due to limited IPv4 addresses (and a refusal to upgrade) could lead to misidentification.
That said, all the IP address gives you is the Subscriber's name, and the address registered for service, which might be the home of the subscriber. The big fight over IP lawsuits is the attempt to shakedown the subscriber without having reasonable suspicion that the subscriber is indeed the infringer. There are so many unknowns in the chain, from subscriber identification, to someone with a verizon phone using the Verizon wifi of a random person to infringe. Without extra data, there is no direct link between the identity of the subscriber and the identity of the infringer.
In this case, The question is if a warrant is required, and that actually alleviates the identification concerns. In piracy cases, the smackdown comes often because there is no evidence the IP holder investigated if the subscriber was the infringer - because they most often can't. What they have can at best identify the subscriber. In the cell phone case, Without a warrant the investigation has that very concern - did the police identify the correct phone to track? Judicial review could help examine that very concern. As cell phones are rarely shared devices, the bar is lower, but judical review can help. Additionally, The police would also have to show there is probable cause that the person in question actually did the crime under investigation, which is strikingly similar to the reasons judges have been rejecting copyright troll cases.
We are concerned with the privacy aspect of not having a warrant to access CSLI precisely because we want the police to show their work before we let them have that CSLI.
The judge who ruled for the TMOBILE/Sprint merger cited that there was no evidence that Dish wouldn't build a compting service.
This statement by the Dish CEO puts the lie to claim. Dish does not expect to be able to survive unless they merge with DirectTV. How can they get the funding to develop a robust competitor to 3 companies so big it is impossible to compete (The whole reason we are supposed to ignore the historical evidence of why the merger is a bad idea is that TMobile Needs to be bigger to actually compete.)? Answer: We can't. The judge's reasoning didn't last a month. Emergency Appeal, new evidence has been submitted by the dish CEO that shows that dish is unlikely to become a competitor in the space.
THere is no evidence that shows "[an] explosion of crime, disease, and violence" in any statistically widespread manner, nor that such an explosion is only isolated to "cities with radical ‘progressives’ in city government". And even if you could correlate the two factors, correlation is not causation.
You have several steps of evidence before you can claim your conclusion. And reality isn't on your side. Overall SF crime is down, with homicides being at a 60 year low. Property crimes, the ones affected by prop 47 raising the bar for felonies in non violent crimes, are down. Your claims are not borne out by the evidence.
Interestingly, Prop 47 only affected property crimes, not violent crimes. both property and violent Crime in SF was down in 2019 over 2018, and is down when comparing 2019 to 2015, the last pre-prop 47 year.
You claim common sense, but I prefer a rigorous analysis of crime rates to establish what forms of policing and laws work. And Crime Statistics do not bear out your issues with San Francisco. Crime Statistics do not bear out a widespread crime and health crisis in progressive metropolitan areas.
Also, Violence would seem to be covered by 'crime'. Do you not think violence is a crime?
On the post: Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality
Re: Why not Disney?
Subjecting Disney+ to data caps is the concern. And I have seen no evidence Disney+ is exempted from data caps. Most people are just always on Wi-fi since the launch, because for some reason people aren't out and about right now, so AT&T's mobile data caps haven't been a concern. Some thing about a pandemic or something.
On the post: Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?
Re: Targeted Destruction
In a system that values property greater than lives and and looks at the value of lives almost exclusively in terms of their economic productivity, the destruction of property is a powerful message. It motivates business and property owners to call for change when they would otherwise ignore the issues. And, most importantly, it works, as history shows. Its the only thing that works.
On the post: If You're Reporting On Trump's Supposed Plans For 'Anti-Conservative Bias' Panel, Shouldn't You Mention The 1st Amendment?
Re: Re:
So you explicitly Are requesting twitter cease enforcing the harassment clause within the TOS? Or That the clauses unenforceable? Could you cite statute or case law on that?
On the post: How Most Of The Anti-Internet Crew Misread The News That The NY Times Is Getting Rid Of 3rd Party Advertisers
Re: RE: "buying prop ads to harvest the data"
But that isn’t facebook selling your data. What they sold was a promise to display an ad to a random person that matches targeted categories. If you, the advertiser, use that purchase to harvest aggregate data and then combine that data set with other separate data sets to identify specific individuals, that isn’t facebook selling user’s data. It not what rules against sellibg personally identifying info are designed to prevent, because facebook can’t prevent you from tracking data from people who click through your own ad.
On the post: How Most Of The Anti-Internet Crew Misread The News That The NY Times Is Getting Rid Of 3rd Party Advertisers
Re: You do know aggregate data can be tracked...
I have to assume you misunderstand the premise.
If you want to place an ad for a 25-45 male with a CIS interest, you go to face book and put in those parameters in an ad buy, and facebook places those ads. No data is going back to you in that transaction
If you are separately aggregating data on people coming to your site and cross referencing that data with aggregate data from other ad buyers to identify users, you collected that data. You didn’t buy it from facebook. Don’t hide your shitty practices of buying prop ads to harvest the data of customers coming to your website as facebook selling the data.
On the post: Court Tosses Lawsuit From Man Claiming Twitter Discriminated Against Him For Being A Heterosexual Christian
Re:
Part of his argument is that twitter, in reaction to the lawsuit, contacted him to determine if he was represented by council, and therefore he should be paid 25 MIllion because....twitter wanted to serve him with a motion as required by law?
Ignoring the strange conclusion, the rules of court require opposing attorneys to contact each other, rather than clients. Twitter sounds like they were making sure he was in fact not represented by council before serving him personally with legal documents as the court requires.
The Plaintiffs assertions that Twitter following the rules was a result of twitter acting in bad faith suggest that perhaps the plaintiff's other claims of bad faith on the part of twitter are not, indeed, bad faith, but rather twitter following the rules it has set out, rules the plaintiff had agreed to and then ignored. A lack of pleading of fact on the issue of bad faith action supports this conclusion, and plaintiffs further claims that content was not a factor in his ban, but rather his underlying beliefs, also supports this conclusion.
On the post: After Months Of Incompetence, 'Smart' Pet Feeder Company PetNet Falls Apart, Blames COVID-19
Re: Re: Re:
You are right, I drew a wider conclusion then you were making. i was talking about hardware communications protocols, not software. And the Bluetooth standard isn't a free standard. But it is an open one. My point being that since the HRM used an open communications standard, and app-neutral communications existed in the target market, there was no reason the HRM had to fail when a specific vendor stopped offering their app. I was drawing a similar philisophical point, and apologize for conflating it with yours.
Free software has been discussed in these pages before. And again, Mike's protocols not platforms approach covers exactly what you are saying. I know mike has argued for a broader philisophical platform than the focus on software, and I think he has effectively argued for the libre software solution even if he doesn't say the words because he is focused on broader approaches than just fix software. I've gotten the impression that he doesn't like software being under either copyright or patent. And during DMCA anti-circumvention discussions, the way proprietary software prevents you from owning the hardware is at the forefront. He is arguing for libre software, but perhaps not using those words, since they tie to a specific policy proposal. Mike seems to try to avoid specific policy proposals, generally talking in broader questions of goals and the way to move toward them, but let actual policy makers iron out policy. And really, Coming to the comments and saying "hey, you know, if these vendors used libre software it wouldn't matter!" its the most no shit sherlock kind of answer.
Given the Free software foundation has come up a number of times in techdirt hsitory, and the seeming longevity of techdirt's audiance, its not fair to believe people don't know who they are. We defend the concept against trolls on a regular basis as their failure to understand it is a common basis of attack.
Moreover, your original post didn't serve to introduce the concept to the audiance, only to say that the concept exists. You aren't going into either the nature or the ideology. So its a weird hill to die on that nobody is talking about it, since you really aren't either.
On the post: After Months Of Incompetence, 'Smart' Pet Feeder Company PetNet Falls Apart, Blames COVID-19
Re:
I have. Right here just because you haven't seen the suggestion, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
I admittedly don't remember if Techdirt has thrown up that flag specifically before. But it is the natural answer of how to build a internet enabled device without lock-in. Its also a natural extension of the [protocols not platforms solution(https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190825/21540442853/protocols-not-platforms-technologica l-approach-to-free-speech.shtml) Mike has been suggestiong for social media. Heck, several years ago Techdirt did an article on the way cloud storage failed to live up to its premise where Mike explicitly argues that cloud storage should have been about individually opwned cloud buckets linking into interoperable cloud services rather than proprietary services.
I think you just aren't reading. Techdirt may never have suggested it for this specific situation, but its a clean extension of everything they argue for.
On the post: OK, Landlord: If Copyright Supporters Are Going To Insist Copyright Is Property, Why Are They So Mad About Being Called Landlords?
Re:
You've missed the forest for the trees there my friend.
As used in this article, Landlord is being used to describe a property owner who extracts passive rents from the use of their property. This can, as you point out, describe most ways of extracting passive rents even when we aren't discussing land. But in the US landlords aren't nobility either, but we still call them landlords. In the same way, a property management company could be called property rental service, like a car rental service, but we've made artificial distinctions between the passive income generated by the exploitation of land versus transportation. Income generated by exploiting the use of property are described as rents.
The rhetorical point of calling them landlords is that while copyright holders claim they own property, they generally ascribe what they own as the content, rather than the rights to exploit the content. And when you describe income derived from those rights as rents and the holder as a landlord, you cast the lie to the claim that what they own is the content rather than the right to exploit the content in specific ways. Active Income is not generated from the content itself or its copyrights, but into the utilization of the content. Copyrights provide a passive rent income, taxing those who wish to utilize the content. The point of calling them landlords is not to suggest they are nobility who owns land, but to suggest they are rent seeking - having secured or developed some content (land) they now looking for rents for its use, rather than exploit the work directly.
On the post: Famed Law Professor Richard Epstein's Ever Changing Claims About How Many People Will Die From COVID-19
Re: Re:
Libertarians, while they hold a distinct political view, are quite small overall, and are most prominent as a wing of the Republican party, with libertarian thought pervading the Party and its politics. The Debates around the Obamacare repeal, specifically the difficulty reaching a republican consensus highlight the veins of libertarian thought.
More importantly, the article is about Richard Epstein, who is obstensibly libertarian. The arguemnets he is making are obstensibly libertarian. The AC was not speaking incorrectly.
On the post: Trump Campaign Suing All His Media 'Enemies': Files Another Silly SLAPP Suit Over CNN Opinion Piece
Re:
The quoted line has nothing to do with Trump's awareness of the suit. Trump's campaign is a legally distinct entity from Trump himself, and therefore if the lawsuit goes long enough for discovery, document requests to trump himself may be limited in scope. Not because Trump was unaware of the lawsuit, but because his exposure may be limited to his interactions with his 2016 campaign and his 2020 campaign. The contested statements specify Trump Campaign Officials, so the campaign is the aggrieved party, and Trump's documents relating to himself personally or communications with non-campaign officials probably aren't in the scope. We may even see issues with Trump's communications with campaign officials by non-campaign funded means. As much as we would hope that the courts would recognize that Trump's web of overlapping orgs represents a way to dodge discovery of communications, it may be effective. And even if it isn't, any such discovery would represent months if not years of litigation before they were settled.
On the post: No, Google Isn't Hiding Elizabeth Warren's Emails To Promote Mayor Pete
Re: Re: Re:
The alternative premise Mike draws is that the content of Buttigieg emails are crafted to appear as email users really want, but that Warren emails appear more 'promotional', as not-quite-spam, rather than providing special treatment to Buttigieg.
There are a number of ways to demonstrate either that gmail is providing special treatment to Buttigieg or that contents of these emails is a factor. For instance, Sending the contents of an allowed Buttigieg campaign email and a promotional Warren Campaign email from generic corporate emails could produce data on if the contents was a factor over the FROM header.
But Mike doesn't need to prove his thesis. He is only producing a reasonable alternative explanation. He is not saying "this is how it is". He is saying the conclusions drawn from The Markup are half baked. They have not proved the implication that Google has their finger on the scale any more than Mike has proven his case. And Mike's Alternative idea, that rather than a shadowy coder assigning political emails to different filters to benefit Pete Buttigieg the 2 younger candidates (Buttigeg and Yang) hired email marketers that understand how to get an email around Promotions makes a significant amount of sense. And if there are not hidden hands helping Buttigieg, it makes sense he has one of the highest SPAM rates.
On the post: The Law Doesn't Care About Your Feelings: 9th Circuit Slams Prager University For Its Silly Lawsuit Against YouTube
Re:
The argument is not that "it's fine because we have a pro-conservative bias". The argument is that "The data does not back up a finding of anti-conservative bias." The argument being made only expresses that Prager U is not subject to some special level of scrutiny or censorship because it is conservative, because many high-profile left-aligned channels see higher levels of restricted videos than Prager U. The conclusion that this represents a pro-conservative bias is never reached by the article, and just as premature as claims of pro-liberal bias.
The point Techdirt has made time and time again is that the biases in YouTube's algorithms are unlikely to be based on a supposed political nature of content, but the ability to monetize the content. Never has the argument that politically motivated bias is okay been expressed.
On the post: Smithsonian Releases 2.8 Million Images And 3D Models Into The Public Domain
Re: And how to search for the cc0 content?
if you look at the FIRST LINK techdirt provides, it is to the open access library, and all of the content in the open access library is CC0 based on the FAQ. They specifically don't include anything with outside copyright interests or the smithsonian otherwise does not fully own. I have no idea where you get your assertion that "there be much more in there with restrictions".
If you go to the collections search center as they recommend for advanced search capacity, there is indeed a ton more content, but one of the filters is to explictly limit results to CC0 content. (screenshot)
On the post: Kentucky Appeals Court Says Cops Need Warrants To Obtain Real-Time Cell Site Location Info
Re: As much as I want the location data to be private...
I'm not usre how the conclusion follows
IP has a number of issues. One is that it is not conclusive that they have captured the correct IP, another is a question of if the ISP has correctly identified the subscriber responsible. Given how much of my usage Comcast hallucinates into existence, i would not be surprised if they don't actually know 100%. Various factors, including the sharing of IPs due to limited IPv4 addresses (and a refusal to upgrade) could lead to misidentification.
That said, all the IP address gives you is the Subscriber's name, and the address registered for service, which might be the home of the subscriber. The big fight over IP lawsuits is the attempt to shakedown the subscriber without having reasonable suspicion that the subscriber is indeed the infringer. There are so many unknowns in the chain, from subscriber identification, to someone with a verizon phone using the Verizon wifi of a random person to infringe. Without extra data, there is no direct link between the identity of the subscriber and the identity of the infringer.
In this case, The question is if a warrant is required, and that actually alleviates the identification concerns. In piracy cases, the smackdown comes often because there is no evidence the IP holder investigated if the subscriber was the infringer - because they most often can't. What they have can at best identify the subscriber. In the cell phone case, Without a warrant the investigation has that very concern - did the police identify the correct phone to track? Judicial review could help examine that very concern. As cell phones are rarely shared devices, the bar is lower, but judical review can help. Additionally, The police would also have to show there is probable cause that the person in question actually did the crime under investigation, which is strikingly similar to the reasons judges have been rejecting copyright troll cases.
We are concerned with the privacy aspect of not having a warrant to access CSLI precisely because we want the police to show their work before we let them have that CSLI.
On the post: Dish Floats DirecTV Merger, Because What's A Little Mindless Monopolization Among Friends?
NY AG should relook at the appeal
The judge who ruled for the TMOBILE/Sprint merger cited that there was no evidence that Dish wouldn't build a compting service.
This statement by the Dish CEO puts the lie to claim. Dish does not expect to be able to survive unless they merge with DirectTV. How can they get the funding to develop a robust competitor to 3 companies so big it is impossible to compete (The whole reason we are supposed to ignore the historical evidence of why the merger is a bad idea is that TMobile Needs to be bigger to actually compete.)? Answer: We can't. The judge's reasoning didn't last a month. Emergency Appeal, new evidence has been submitted by the dish CEO that shows that dish is unlikely to become a competitor in the space.
On the post: AG Bill Barr Pretends The Nation Was Better Off Being Bullied By Cops, Lies About The Success Of 'Tough On Crime' Policies
Re: Re:
THere is no evidence that shows "[an] explosion of crime, disease, and violence" in any statistically widespread manner, nor that such an explosion is only isolated to "cities with radical ‘progressives’ in city government". And even if you could correlate the two factors, correlation is not causation.
You have several steps of evidence before you can claim your conclusion. And reality isn't on your side. Overall SF crime is down, with homicides being at a 60 year low. Property crimes, the ones affected by prop 47 raising the bar for felonies in non violent crimes, are down. Your claims are not borne out by the evidence.
On the post: AG Bill Barr Pretends The Nation Was Better Off Being Bullied By Cops, Lies About The Success Of 'Tough On Crime' Policies
Re: Crime
Interestingly, Prop 47 only affected property crimes, not violent crimes. both property and violent Crime in SF was down in 2019 over 2018, and is down when comparing 2019 to 2015, the last pre-prop 47 year.
You claim common sense, but I prefer a rigorous analysis of crime rates to establish what forms of policing and laws work. And Crime Statistics do not bear out your issues with San Francisco. Crime Statistics do not bear out a widespread crime and health crisis in progressive metropolitan areas.
Also, Violence would seem to be covered by 'crime'. Do you not think violence is a crime?
On the post: AG Bill Barr Pretends The Nation Was Better Off Being Bullied By Cops, Lies About The Success Of 'Tough On Crime' Policies
Re:
PaulT was specifically assessing the prison population based on the criteria of the comment he responded to, not necessarily his own opinion.
On the post: AG Bill Barr Pretends The Nation Was Better Off Being Bullied By Cops, Lies About The Success Of 'Tough On Crime' Policies
Re: Re:
Quite true. AG Barr's disdain for constitutional protections and procedures as confirmed by the Supreme Court is quite stunning.
your TL;DR of the article is a bit questionable however, given it is somewhat of a non-sequitur given your earlier comment.
Next >>