People disagreeing with you does not make them part of an echo chamber. Not saying they or you are right or wrong. I do feel this kind of insulting response to their disagreement is part of the problem.
I appreciate the calm reasoned response after that post.
I'll will open this by saying simply that I do disagree with your thoughts that we're at a point where this kind of destructive response is somehow ok. I honestly feel that you are ignoring half of history to pretend that nothing has changed or that we are somehow in the same place we were back in the days of slavery or even segregation.
I do agree that in some parts of this country things are still really bad. I still feel they are better than they used to be but not by much. It disgusts me to no end to see how the black population is generally treated in Chicago. But I can say that that is not true of most places outside of there.
The idea that peaceful protests do nothing is nonsense. No they do not bring about change quickly, but they do bring about change better than violence in any case where change is still possible without violence. The violence in these protests today is not changing hearts the way you want them to change. Many people are sadly going to turn against you for quite frankly very good reasons. This doesn't make them racist. It simply means they believe that rampant violence against everyone in the area was not an ok response to this. They are ok disagreeing with you on that. Any attempt to insult them for thinking that is wrong and again will only turn hearts and minds against you. And they are not wrong for turning against you on this.
Name any example of someone from CNN, MSNBC, or the Democratic Party being "fact checked" by Twitter
Completely irrelevant but just to point out your own obvious bias I'll point out that the article literally did exactly that. Apparently you just like to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.
Of course the more important point that has already been made to you is that Twitter is allowed to censor any way it pleases the same way you're allowed to censor in your own household any way you please. Don't like it? Too bad.
I'm fascinated by your continued demonstration of nothing but hatred for anyone you disagree with followed by countless completely baseless and unproveable statements about said individuals seemingly for no better reason than that they disagree with you.
So please, do tell me what makes you think that most scientists don't believe in God/some similar concept of a divine being? Please remember that statements of your own opinions without some kind of evidence to back them up are nonsense.
Someone else doing actual bad things using information about you is not a valid justification for trying to block others from sharing said information. It cannot be inherently owned and your only reasoning for pretending it can is because "someone might do something bad with it".
You go after people who actually do bad things using that information. Trying to prevent information from getting out there is a hopeless and meaningless effort you will never win.
You're talking about controlling the mere image of something that could be seen from somewhere the person seeing it was allowed to be.
The idea that privacy is some all encompassing right is nonsense. It's an impossible state that you can never achieve and is not reasonable to insist you should be able to.
This is literally you feeling like something must be wrong and so insisting that it is somehow morally wrong just because you don't like how it feels. It's understandable why you feel that way. It's not reasonable to insist it's wrong purely because you don't like it.
You not wanting it doesn't make it wrong or create some magical "right" to control over it.
We're not talking about anything you have any right to own. These are mere images of someone taken from somewhere a person was allowed to be. It is of course understandable why you don't like it but again that's not enough to give you control over something you can't inherently control.
Rather than jumping to insults, stop and read what you said and the article again.
You're not making any sense and what you said is completely false at least as far as it applies to what's being talked about here.
Defend Section 230 all you want with other examples, cause it’s really important, but from where I’m standing, the idea that the freedom to experiment that it gives to websites can enable them to grow and outcompete Big Tech is unusable as a defense of 230
That's because you've locked your examples to a ridiculously limited worldview spanning maybe 10-15 years. You need to go look up history before Facebook, not to mention plenty of examples people have already given you in response to this post.
You also ignore the basic economics of the issue. Most people don't look for other services because big tech is still doing a good job at giving people what they want for a price they're willing to pay. The fact that 230 allows someone to potentially come in and replace them is a factor and does help keep them from straying too far away from what people are willing to accept.
The fact that you can show examples of startups failing is not evidence against this argument. It's anecdotal and ignores everything else surrounding the issue.
Repeating these lies does not make them suddenly facts.
Filtering out content does not magically make a site a publisher of other content simply because they chose not to filter it.
Even if that somehow applied, it wouldn't matter. CDA 230 says nothing about anyone needing to act like a platform or publisher. It literally says they cannot be considered the publisher if the content came from someone else. Your attempt to debate which one they are is not relevant because the law literally says they cannot be a publisher. Period.
Name one example ever where courts have gone after someone for someone else running a site that looked like it was that other person even though there's literally nothing else anywhere that shows that's the case. The idea that Disney could be held liable is ridiculous. Courts always care who did what, and Disney did nothing here.
All your remaining points just boil down to "the right path would take longer than I want so it's ok to do the wrong thing here". Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the path that respects justice and basic rights of individuals takes a while is not a reason to avoid it.
Much of the problem is that nothing has every been done to really prove this. I'm sure there are areas where they do a better job trying to train dogs, but ultimately you're trusting a creature you have no power to actually communicate with.
There's no real evidence that dogs can be trained to reliably only signal when they smell what you want them to. That lack of reliable communication should be enough reason to say we should never be using dogs as tools for this high risk task.
So the country that innovates in health care literally more than the entire rest of the world by several times is a failure for not innovating enough in health care....
Trump is not the Republican Party. Attempting to pretend you can equate other's reasons for disliking him with your reasons for disliking anyone that thinks businesses might be at least a little bit important is not going to fly with most of us.
The rest of the world is seeing similar problems with unemployment. This is not to say that that's the only factor. It is however one of the biggest drivers across the world right now.
Pointing out that other countries are spending money to create "safety nets" is disingenuous. So is the US. It doesn't change the fact that unemployment has taken a sharp rise across the world at the same time for the same reason.
You're supposed to use the liberties you've been given and still very much have to vote them out of office. The drastic measures you're implying are not legitimate for where we are today.
Much of the problem is not with the politicians but rather with so much of the populace no longer valuing these freedoms and choosing not to care what they're politicians are doing.
You can't solve the problem by jumping to the nuclear option when there are far simpler explanations for the problems.
There's nothing unfortunate there, you're just pretending there's a difference that doesn't actually exist.
They're copying them either way. The DRM doesn't change that at all. It just attempts to force them to get rid of the copy they made at some date.
Fair use does not require this. In fact it's explicitly contrary to what fair use, and thus Copyright law, allows and encourages. They are allowed to make a copy for the purposes they are doing it for in this case. Adding DRM to that is just showing a personal paranoia and unwillingness to accept the terms the law set down.
When trying to save lives, holding someone responsible because something wasn't done perfectly is just as despicable as letting them die because you don't want to chance a shoddy repair.
No, no one will be "held accountable" because trying to save a life and failing when there was no other way is freaking OK.
They're talking about meetings that were intentionally made available to the public. Anyone who saw the link could join. You can't claim they weren't invited since the entire world was literally invited. End to end encryption has nothing to do with that and would not have prevented anything since the user had a legitimate link to the meeting.
There is no such thing as a "cure" for a disease that does what you're implying (makes it impossible for the person to ever get that disease again).
The only thing that has ever "cured" any disease in a way that we now consider it ALMOST impossible for anyone to ever get it IS vaccines. So your attempt to separate those two ideas is a complete failure.
Now to what you called a "fallacy". Ya that's not what that word means either. You're pointing out a fact he didn't address in his reasoning. That's not a fallacy. That's just another point that might be worth considering.
Reducing the time required to get the vaccine approved isn't relevant when you're talking about an argument to remove all possible patent related concerns regarding the time required to get that approval in the first place. He's already addressed anything that needs to be relating to that additional point.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Re: Re: Echo Chamber
People disagreeing with you does not make them part of an echo chamber. Not saying they or you are right or wrong. I do feel this kind of insulting response to their disagreement is part of the problem.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
I appreciate the calm reasoned response after that post.
I'll will open this by saying simply that I do disagree with your thoughts that we're at a point where this kind of destructive response is somehow ok. I honestly feel that you are ignoring half of history to pretend that nothing has changed or that we are somehow in the same place we were back in the days of slavery or even segregation.
I do agree that in some parts of this country things are still really bad. I still feel they are better than they used to be but not by much. It disgusts me to no end to see how the black population is generally treated in Chicago. But I can say that that is not true of most places outside of there.
The idea that peaceful protests do nothing is nonsense. No they do not bring about change quickly, but they do bring about change better than violence in any case where change is still possible without violence. The violence in these protests today is not changing hearts the way you want them to change. Many people are sadly going to turn against you for quite frankly very good reasons. This doesn't make them racist. It simply means they believe that rampant violence against everyone in the area was not an ok response to this. They are ok disagreeing with you on that. Any attempt to insult them for thinking that is wrong and again will only turn hearts and minds against you. And they are not wrong for turning against you on this.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re:
Name any example of someone from CNN, MSNBC, or the Democratic Party being "fact checked" by Twitter
Completely irrelevant but just to point out your own obvious bias I'll point out that the article literally did exactly that. Apparently you just like to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.
Of course the more important point that has already been made to you is that Twitter is allowed to censor any way it pleases the same way you're allowed to censor in your own household any way you please. Don't like it? Too bad.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
Re: Re:
I'm fascinated by your continued demonstration of nothing but hatred for anyone you disagree with followed by countless completely baseless and unproveable statements about said individuals seemingly for no better reason than that they disagree with you.
So please, do tell me what makes you think that most scientists don't believe in God/some similar concept of a divine being? Please remember that statements of your own opinions without some kind of evidence to back them up are nonsense.
On the post: Court Tells Grandma To Delete Photos Of Grandkids On Facebook For Violating The GDPR
Re: No one should ever post children's pictures.
Someone else doing actual bad things using information about you is not a valid justification for trying to block others from sharing said information. It cannot be inherently owned and your only reasoning for pretending it can is because "someone might do something bad with it".
You go after people who actually do bad things using that information. Trying to prevent information from getting out there is a hopeless and meaningless effort you will never win.
On the post: Court Tells Grandma To Delete Photos Of Grandkids On Facebook For Violating The GDPR
Re:
You're talking about controlling the mere image of something that could be seen from somewhere the person seeing it was allowed to be.
The idea that privacy is some all encompassing right is nonsense. It's an impossible state that you can never achieve and is not reasonable to insist you should be able to.
This is literally you feeling like something must be wrong and so insisting that it is somehow morally wrong just because you don't like how it feels. It's understandable why you feel that way. It's not reasonable to insist it's wrong purely because you don't like it.
On the post: Court Tells Grandma To Delete Photos Of Grandkids On Facebook For Violating The GDPR
Re: GDPR requires takedown
You not wanting it doesn't make it wrong or create some magical "right" to control over it.
We're not talking about anything you have any right to own. These are mere images of someone taken from somewhere a person was allowed to be. It is of course understandable why you don't like it but again that's not enough to give you control over something you can't inherently control.
On the post: No, CDA 230 Isn't The Only Thing Keeping Conservatives Off YouTube
Re: Re: Re:
Rather than jumping to insults, stop and read what you said and the article again.
You're not making any sense and what you said is completely false at least as far as it applies to what's being talked about here.
On the post: No, CDA 230 Isn't The Only Thing Keeping Conservatives Off YouTube
Re:
Defend Section 230 all you want with other examples, cause it’s really important, but from where I’m standing, the idea that the freedom to experiment that it gives to websites can enable them to grow and outcompete Big Tech is unusable as a defense of 230
That's because you've locked your examples to a ridiculously limited worldview spanning maybe 10-15 years. You need to go look up history before Facebook, not to mention plenty of examples people have already given you in response to this post.
You also ignore the basic economics of the issue. Most people don't look for other services because big tech is still doing a good job at giving people what they want for a price they're willing to pay. The fact that 230 allows someone to potentially come in and replace them is a factor and does help keep them from straying too far away from what people are willing to accept.
The fact that you can show examples of startups failing is not evidence against this argument. It's anecdotal and ignores everything else surrounding the issue.
On the post: No, CDA 230 Isn't The Only Thing Keeping Conservatives Off YouTube
Re: Hmm...
Repeating these lies does not make them suddenly facts.
Filtering out content does not magically make a site a publisher of other content simply because they chose not to filter it.
Even if that somehow applied, it wouldn't matter. CDA 230 says nothing about anyone needing to act like a platform or publisher. It literally says they cannot be considered the publisher if the content came from someone else. Your attempt to debate which one they are is not relevant because the law literally says they cannot be a publisher. Period.
On the post: Disney: If We Can't Run Club Penguin, No One Can Run Club Penguin [Updated]
Re: Re: Update added
Name one example ever where courts have gone after someone for someone else running a site that looked like it was that other person even though there's literally nothing else anywhere that shows that's the case. The idea that Disney could be held liable is ridiculous. Courts always care who did what, and Disney did nothing here.
All your remaining points just boil down to "the right path would take longer than I want so it's ok to do the wrong thing here". Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the path that respects justice and basic rights of individuals takes a while is not a reason to avoid it.
On the post: Federal Court Says Every Drug Dog In Utah Is Unreliable
Re: Real drug dogs
Much of the problem is that nothing has every been done to really prove this. I'm sure there are areas where they do a better job trying to train dogs, but ultimately you're trusting a creature you have no power to actually communicate with.
There's no real evidence that dogs can be trained to reliably only signal when they smell what you want them to. That lack of reliable communication should be enough reason to say we should never be using dogs as tools for this high risk task.
On the post: As We're All Living, Working, And Socializing Via The Internet... MIT Tech Review Says It Proves Silicon Valley Innovation Is A Myth
Re: Last Paragraph
So the country that innovates in health care literally more than the entire rest of the world by several times is a failure for not innovating enough in health care....
On the post: Unshocking Report: Trump Admin Is Historically Terrible At Reining In Destructive Monopolies
Re:
Trump is not the Republican Party. Attempting to pretend you can equate other's reasons for disliking him with your reasons for disliking anyone that thinks businesses might be at least a little bit important is not going to fly with most of us.
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: Re:
The rest of the world is seeing similar problems with unemployment. This is not to say that that's the only factor. It is however one of the biggest drivers across the world right now.
Pointing out that other countries are spending money to create "safety nets" is disingenuous. So is the US. It doesn't change the fact that unemployment has taken a sharp rise across the world at the same time for the same reason.
On the post: Senator Tillis Angry At The Internet Archive For Helping People Read During A Pandemic; Archive Explains Why That's Wrong
Re: Re:
You're supposed to use the liberties you've been given and still very much have to vote them out of office. The drastic measures you're implying are not legitimate for where we are today.
Much of the problem is not with the politicians but rather with so much of the populace no longer valuing these freedoms and choosing not to care what they're politicians are doing.
You can't solve the problem by jumping to the nuclear option when there are far simpler explanations for the problems.
On the post: Senator Tillis Angry At The Internet Archive For Helping People Read During A Pandemic; Archive Explains Why That's Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Libraries and copyright issues.
There's nothing unfortunate there, you're just pretending there's a difference that doesn't actually exist.
They're copying them either way. The DRM doesn't change that at all. It just attempts to force them to get rid of the copy they made at some date.
Fair use does not require this. In fact it's explicitly contrary to what fair use, and thus Copyright law, allows and encourages. They are allowed to make a copy for the purposes they are doing it for in this case. Adding DRM to that is just showing a personal paranoia and unwillingness to accept the terms the law set down.
It's beyond stupid and completely unnecessary.
On the post: Manufacturers Refuse To Allow Hospitals To Fix Ventilators That Are The Last Hope For Many COVID-19 Patients
Re:
When trying to save lives, holding someone responsible because something wasn't done perfectly is just as despicable as letting them die because you don't want to chance a shoddy repair.
No, no one will be "held accountable" because trying to save a life and failing when there was no other way is freaking OK.
On the post: Senator Blumenthal Is Super Mad That Zoom Isn't Actually Offering The End To End Encryption His Law Will Outlaw
Re:
They're talking about meetings that were intentionally made available to the public. Anyone who saw the link could join. You can't claim they weren't invited since the entire world was literally invited. End to end encryption has nothing to do with that and would not have prevented anything since the user had a legitimate link to the meeting.
On the post: Everyone's Got A Pet Project: Patent Maximalist Says We Need Longer Patents To Incentivize Coronavirus Vaccines
Re: Vaccine vs cure markets
You're using those words wrong.
There is no such thing as a "cure" for a disease that does what you're implying (makes it impossible for the person to ever get that disease again).
The only thing that has ever "cured" any disease in a way that we now consider it ALMOST impossible for anyone to ever get it IS vaccines. So your attempt to separate those two ideas is a complete failure.
Now to what you called a "fallacy". Ya that's not what that word means either. You're pointing out a fact he didn't address in his reasoning. That's not a fallacy. That's just another point that might be worth considering.
Reducing the time required to get the vaccine approved isn't relevant when you're talking about an argument to remove all possible patent related concerns regarding the time required to get that approval in the first place. He's already addressed anything that needs to be relating to that additional point.
Next >>