The word "liberal" hasn't always meant "progressive nanny-statist". The fact that it eventually morphed into the sad state it is today is why the term "libertarian" was coined.
You may be chomping at the bit to give up any or all of your essential rights in a fit of pearl-clutching hyperventilation, but not all of us are as prone to fainting spells.
If you really wanted to prevent those things, you'd oppose the war on drugs, since it's the policy causing shootouts and dangerous product in the first place.
If you say "Black lives matter!" and someone else interjects with "Hey, all lives matter!" they are being an asshole, I agree.
However, if an ally says "All lives matter!" and you interject with "Hey, black lives matter!" (as was the case in the post you are responding to), you're the asshole.
When I had my current house built, I was told by the builder that Brighthouse would be my cable provider (who I adore). Brighthouse's online tool confirmed coverage for my zip code, as did Comcast's. After signing the papers, I went to set up my utilities and Brighthouse said no. Damn.
Grudgingly, I turned to Comcast. But although online it said that service was available to me, it kept giving me an error when I went to actually complete the check-out process, and their online chat rep told me that I would have to go into a Comcast office in person to sort it out. When I did, the tech came back after 10 minutes and told me I was years away from ever getting service at that address, even if they were to start the process now, which, by the way, they weren't even considering. So, thanks to Comcast for wasting as much of time as possible.
I ended up with CenturyLink, whose best offered DSL plan in my area is 10 mbps, but who told me they could only offer me 6 mbps under it (with no discount of course). So I ended up going from a 150/10 connection to a 6/0.5 connection.
Still, it could be worse. At least I have a connection that can stream a video . . .
I think that once arbitrary decisions hurt somebody financially one can at least question the legality of such moves under anti-trust issues.
"Does not accept all uses of their platform that I personally wish they would accept" is not anti-trust. At all. Like, it's not just not in the same ball park, you aren't in the same state. There are multiple other competitors in the app store space, and Google themselves specifically allows you to side-load any app you want. They aren't a monopoly. If you don't like the app store's terms of service, use a different one.
Besides I'd say there's enough room for using fair use here and on similar cases.
There is nothing in the law that says Google has to allow content on its platform merely because that content qualifies as fair use.
Sure Google can reject applications but once they accepted all based on public guidelines then they should not discriminate.
If developers had a contract with them that stated they were owed damages should Google change their mind, that's one thing, but they don't. Changing their mind after approving an app is not illegal, or actionable.
I am interpreting it to be a civil matter at least in the fair use front
Fair use has to do with whether or not the developer or Google could be sued by the owner of the pictures in question, not whether or not Google must host a particular app.
So if it's an open platform and anybody can sell there why are they discriminating a few players?
Discrimination based on content isn't illegal, nor should it be.
My wording may have been poor but don't you agree that there are legal questions to be asked here?
No. There are no legal questions here regarding Google's right to not host an app.
Simple: all devs should start suing Google when they remo0ve their application without legal basis and proper explanation.
Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has a legal right to publish apps on the Google Play store in the first place, so they can remove apps as they see fit, even in situations that are unfair, short-sighted, done "without legal basis", and without "proper explanation". In short, Google owes you jack shit.
(Is this one of those "Everything I personally disagree with should be illegal!" arguments? They do seem to be all the rage these days . . .)
Hard drive manufacturers these days, in a quest for higher data density, basically squeeze so many bytes out of every platter that it is no longer necessary to perform a crazy amount of rewrites to truly delete data on a standard hard drive. There's just not significant extra space hanging out at the margins as a buffer anymore.
Also, wear-leveling algorithms in solid-state drives' firmware lets them remap which sectors of the flash memory are reported as what to the OS, so even if you tell an SSD to write to a particular sector, internally it may choose to write the data to somewhere different.
when you have a president that wipes his ass with your vaunted constitution what do you expect.
How far back would one have to go in history to find a president who didn't? I swear, voters are like battered spouses ("He promised us that this time would be different!")
I wonder if the percentage of crowd-funding products that don't come through varies wildly based on project type. According to Kickstarter, I've backed 83 projects. Out of those, I've only written off one of them, but nearly all of mine were tabletop games.
It's kind of ridiculous to find examples where the entire economy and capital structure of a country was leveled by years of missile strikes and urban combat and then blame the resulting chaos and shortages on "governmental collapse".
Think Goldmad Sacks wouldn't assemble an army of mercenaries if they could?
They don't need one. The government already has that job, and at a much cheaper price than Goldman could do it on their own, since it's funded by taxpayers.
Re: Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're siding with Defense Distributed.
You're acting like it wasn't Cody's entire goal with DD to show how arbitrary the law is, and how hollow the corporate stooges' and politicians' justifications are. Seems to me that he's doing a great job of it.
I'm as critical of our burgeoning police state as anyone, but I can't see anywhere in the quote where he threatened or even hinted that the cops would stop protecting NFL players.
"You have a first amendment right to say that you support the looters, and we have a first amendment right to say that the looters are not your primary supporters" seems like a fairly innocuous thing to say.
On the post: UK Government Goes Full Orwell: Snooper's Charter, Encryption Backdoors, Free Speech Suppression
Re: Re: Re: "Social cohesion"
On the post: Court Shuts Down NYPD's Argument That When Searching For Black Male Suspects, Any Black Male Will Do
Re:
If you really wanted to prevent those things, you'd oppose the war on drugs, since it's the policy causing shootouts and dangerous product in the first place.
On the post: US Marshal Shuts Down Citizen Recording By Grabbing Phone And Smashing It On The Ground
Re: Re: The police are out of control
However, if an ally says "All lives matter!" and you interject with "Hey, black lives matter!" (as was the case in the post you are responding to), you're the asshole.
On the post: Comcast, CenturyLink Give New Home Owner Kafka-esque Introduction To U.S. Broadband Market
Hits Too Close to Home
Grudgingly, I turned to Comcast. But although online it said that service was available to me, it kept giving me an error when I went to actually complete the check-out process, and their online chat rep told me that I would have to go into a Comcast office in person to sort it out. When I did, the tech came back after 10 minutes and told me I was years away from ever getting service at that address, even if they were to start the process now, which, by the way, they weren't even considering. So, thanks to Comcast for wasting as much of time as possible.
I ended up with CenturyLink, whose best offered DSL plan in my area is 10 mbps, but who told me they could only offer me 6 mbps under it (with no discount of course). So I ended up going from a 150/10 connection to a 6/0.5 connection.
Still, it could be worse. At least I have a connection that can stream a video . . .
On the post: Copyright Bots Kill App Over 'Potentially Infringing' Images, Follow This Up By Blocking App For Use Of CC/Public Domain Images
Re: Re: Re:
There is nothing in the law that says Google has to allow content on its platform merely because that content qualifies as fair use.
If developers had a contract with them that stated they were owed damages should Google change their mind, that's one thing, but they don't. Changing their mind after approving an app is not illegal, or actionable.
Fair use has to do with whether or not the developer or Google could be sued by the owner of the pictures in question, not whether or not Google must host a particular app.
Discrimination based on content isn't illegal, nor should it be.
No. There are no legal questions here regarding Google's right to not host an app.
On the post: Copyright Bots Kill App Over 'Potentially Infringing' Images, Follow This Up By Blocking App For Use Of CC/Public Domain Images
Re:
(Is this one of those "Everything I personally disagree with should be illegal!" arguments? They do seem to be all the rage these days . . .)
On the post: Government Pays $18k To Journalists Whose Tank Plant Photos It Deleted
Re: Re: So, did they publish the photos?
Also, wear-leveling algorithms in solid-state drives' firmware lets them remap which sectors of the flash memory are reported as what to the OS, so even if you tell an SSD to write to a particular sector, internally it may choose to write the data to somewhere different.
On the post: White House Celebrates National Freedom Of Information Day By Making Office Of The Administration Completely UnFOIA-able
Re: Re:
On the post: Not So Awesome Stuff: Your Worst Crowdfunding Project?
Variability
On the post: If You Want To See What The U.S. Broadband Market Really Looks Like, Take A Close Look At West Virginia
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Want To See What The U.S. Broadband Market Really Looks Like, Take A Close Look At West Virginia
Re: Re:
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re: Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're siding with Defense Distributed.
On the post: Cable Industry Fights New 25 Mbps Broadband Definition Because The Need For Those Speeds Is 'Hypothetical'
Re: Re: Ugh
On the post: Cable Industry Fights New 25 Mbps Broadband Definition Because The Need For Those Speeds Is 'Hypothetical'
Ugh
On the post: John Steele Looking To Join Former Prenda Lawyer Paul Hansmeier In ADA Lawsuit Shakedown Business
Can it really be a good law, then? Pathway to hell, and all that.
On the post: UK Party Leader Attacks Satirical Mobile Game Made By Teenagers Interested In Politics
On the post: Google Pulls Out The Nuclear Option: Shuts Down Google News In Spain Over Ridiculous Copyright Law
Re:
On the post: No, Tech Companies Can't Easily Create A 'ContentID' For Harassment, And It Would Be A Disaster If They Did
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: St. Louis Police Claim It's Their 'First Amendment' Rights Not To Protect Football Players Who Supported Protestors
Maybe I'm Missing Something
"You have a first amendment right to say that you support the looters, and we have a first amendment right to say that the looters are not your primary supporters" seems like a fairly innocuous thing to say.
On the post: Ride Sharing Services Lead Taxi Medallion Values To Plummet (And That's A Good Thing)
Re:
Next >>