Decided to screw over protesters and then twist the knife by classifying them as gang members, then proceeds to throw an absolute fit screaming about 'defamation!' when an accurate portrayal of her actions leaves her looking less than perfect and professional.
The idea that there might be consequences for her dishonesty must have come as a real shock to such a charming person, hopefully the judge will laugh her 'it's not fair that my actions impacted me too!' lawsuit out of the court.
Assuming there's other alternatives on the ballot ignorance, spite and/or an overwhelming belief that any day now they'll become so rich that they'll end up in that .1% so it's a good idea to cheer for that category now.
How much money did it take to sell us all out Senator, because no bill is pushed unless someone pays you to do it for them.
A very good point, if the only way to have a position on a bill is if someone is paying you then clearly someone must be paying him for these terrible bills, and given FOSTA was a disaster to everyone but criminals and FOSTA 2.0/EARN IT stand to be the same his own argument does not suggest good things about who's paying him.
'I don't support insurrections, just those doing them!'
He says its a "perfect way to enjoy Coffee, Tea, or Liberal Tears!" and is "not a pro-riot mug."
... He says of the picture of him showing support for a bunch of deranged insurrectionists storming the capitol, but I suppose if you want to split hairs there is a difference between 'riot' and 'insurrection' so technically he's correct, just not in a way that leaves him looking better.
The 'I know you are but what am I?' strategy I see
But, instead of responding to these points, the sponsors claim that people highlighting this "don't care about CSAM."
Sure hope the ISS windows are heavily tinted, that level of projection has got to be blinding even up in orbit.
Any time a supporter of EARN IT try to pull the 'for the children!'/'You don't care about the children!' lie articles like this need to be thrown in their face, because for all their screaming about how anyone how isn't fully on their side wants to see children exploited they are showing that no-one supports the exploitation of children more than a politician and that of all the things they could do that actually might work the only thing they can think of is shifting the blame and exploiting children to try to gut encryption.
And just think about how this plays out for an LGBTQ child, brought up in a strictly religious family, who wants to use the internet to find like-minded individuals. Under this bill, that information gets reported back to the parents -- and seems way more likely to lead to distress, harm and even possibly suicidal ideation -- because of this bill.
As soon as I saw mention of the bill mandating that parents would be able to spy on everything their kid did online this was the first thing that came to mind, and to call that 'dangerous' is such a massive understatement to the point that even if the parts that demand that platforms keep the other content away from children 'for their own sakes' actually worked that part alone would more than make up for any potential harm they might be spared from.
Kids having zero privacy and rightly feeling that nothing they say or do isn't being watched would be problematic psychologically on it's own but factor in how that knowledge can potentially pose very real danger(mental/physical/emotional) from the parents and you take a bad idea and make it far, far worse and that alone should be enough to show what a disaster this bill is and would be.
Similar to what one of the AC's above noted if there was ever a time to put software and hardware specs into the public domain this would certainly be a prime case, a company going bankrupt should never leave one or more people wondering if they'll be able to continue to see as a result of that.
The compelled speech angle is a concerning one but something that just came to me is that if you can just stash something that was slated for the public domain you could effectively completely sidestep fulfilling the creator's half of the deal that is copyright, since you'd have used copyright to secure the exclusivity of a work while that lasted and then when it came time to release it to the public you just decide that nah, it's staying with you.
Copyright law may be one-sided and broken as hell currently but unless the various governments and politicians want to completely drop any pretense that it's meant to serve creators and the public there really needs to be some way to ensure that both parties benefit from it and one side can't just take advantage of their half and then refuse to honor the 'deal' when it comes time to return the favor.
Oh what a delightful thought, a judge accustomed to running people through their portion of the town's robbery machine suddenly having defendant after defendant with the utter audacity to contest the charges rather than meekly handing over the money, that must be so vexxing for them.
When those who are supposedly the guardians of society’s cultural patrimony are fighting to stop people from having full and free access to it, it’s clear that copyright’s poison, based on ownership and exclusion, has entered deep into their souls.
The money is probably a much bigger impact on their behavior here, after all if anyone can create replicas then that makes it a lot easier to get one without paying them for it.
Previous article, which is the second link in this one. The relevant quote came from a response to Wyden sending the Treasury Department basically a WTF letter, which prompted the IRS to chime in as follows:
'The IRS announced it will transition away from using a third-party service for facial recognition to help authenticate people creating new online accounts. The transition will occur over the coming weeks in order to prevent larger disruptions to taxpayers during filing season.'
The right answer, of course, is "Yeah, I'm sure there's some child porn on every major site. Tough". But nobody seems to have the guts to say that.
That would be far too easy to use against the platform owner, a perhaps better phrasing would be 'Yeah that content is on our platform despite our best efforts to keep it off, if you can come up with a better way to handle it other than telling us to try harder we're all ears'.
That puts the onus on those claiming that more could be done to actually come up with a better way and allows whatever they come up with to be put under scrutiny for viability, with any blame easier to dump on them rather than the platform.
Brookside will have to adjust to being just another insignificant dot on the road map, rather than an insatiable predator willing to convert residents of other towns into ATMs the PD's band of thieves could hit again and again.
I'm sure they'd like to go back to being considered just another insignificant dot on the map but after national attention to their rampant corruption and the town's apparent refusal to condemn it even now that's probably not what anyone nearby will think when they hear the town's name, and that's assuming they aren't just waiting for the attention to die down before going right back to robbing anyone that makes the mistake of getting near the town.
Highly unlikely, one of the major perks of being a cop other than the ability to rob/assault/murder with near-immunity is that if the heat gets too bad and it's looking like your badge might not be able to save you this time is that you can just quit(at that particular department) and all possible charges just disappear in smoke.
Oh no no no, TOS' are only optional if you work for the government, try to bypass their TOS' and you can be sure they'll treat that as a heinous crime deserving of the most iron-fisted of punishments.
By all means 'win' that appeal, I can't see lowering the bar for defamation could possibly backfire in spectacular fashion say by, and I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there, making it much, much easier to sue someone(whether individual, company or group) for claiming that you were involved in election fraud...
A lowered bar for defamation would certainly bring a serious chilling of speech against those with power but it would also open the doors for them to be on the receiving end a whole lot more themselves so it would not be a painless 'victory' there.
On the post: Arizona Prosecutor Who Brought Bogus Gang Charges Against Protesters Files Ridiculous Defamation Suit Against Her Boss
Not so fun on the other side now is it?
Decided to screw over protesters and then twist the knife by classifying them as gang members, then proceeds to throw an absolute fit screaming about 'defamation!' when an accurate portrayal of her actions leaves her looking less than perfect and professional.
The idea that there might be consequences for her dishonesty must have come as a real shock to such a charming person, hopefully the judge will laugh her 'it's not fair that my actions impacted me too!' lawsuit out of the court.
On the post: Senator Blumenthal: Dismissing All Critics Of EARN IT As 'Big Tech Lobbyists' Shows Your Unwillingness To Recognize The Massive Problems In Your Bill
Objection, sex workers already have to deal with enough crap without their image being further tainted by comparing them to politicians.
On the post: The Josh Hawley Mug: It Makes Him An Asshole, But Shouldn't Make Him A Copyright Infringer
Re: Re: Re:
Assuming there's other alternatives on the ballot ignorance, spite and/or an overwhelming belief that any day now they'll become so rich that they'll end up in that .1% so it's a good idea to cheer for that category now.
On the post: Senator Blumenthal: Dismissing All Critics Of EARN IT As 'Big Tech Lobbyists' Shows Your Unwillingness To Recognize The Massive Problems In Your Bill
Re:
How much money did it take to sell us all out Senator, because no bill is pushed unless someone pays you to do it for them.
A very good point, if the only way to have a position on a bill is if someone is paying you then clearly someone must be paying him for these terrible bills, and given FOSTA was a disaster to everyone but criminals and FOSTA 2.0/EARN IT stand to be the same his own argument does not suggest good things about who's paying him.
On the post: Senator Blumenthal: Dismissing All Critics Of EARN IT As 'Big Tech Lobbyists' Shows Your Unwillingness To Recognize The Massive Problems In Your Bill
You'd think I would have known before now
So that's why I suddenly started getting checks from Google and Facebook in the mail recently, good to finally have that cleared up.
On the post: The Josh Hawley Mug: It Makes Him An Asshole, But Shouldn't Make Him A Copyright Infringer
'I don't support insurrections, just those doing them!'
He says its a "perfect way to enjoy Coffee, Tea, or Liberal Tears!" and is "not a pro-riot mug."
... He says of the picture of him showing support for a bunch of deranged insurrectionists storming the capitol, but I suppose if you want to split hairs there is a difference between 'riot' and 'insurrection' so technically he's correct, just not in a way that leaves him looking better.
On the post: Whatever Problem EARN IT Is Trying To Solve, It Doesn't
The 'I know you are but what am I?' strategy I see
But, instead of responding to these points, the sponsors claim that people highlighting this "don't care about CSAM."
Sure hope the ISS windows are heavily tinted, that level of projection has got to be blinding even up in orbit.
Any time a supporter of EARN IT try to pull the 'for the children!'/'You don't care about the children!' lie articles like this need to be thrown in their face, because for all their screaming about how anyone how isn't fully on their side wants to see children exploited they are showing that no-one supports the exploitation of children more than a politician and that of all the things they could do that actually might work the only thing they can think of is shifting the blame and exploiting children to try to gut encryption.
On the post: Blackburn & Blumenthal Introduce Terrible, Dangerous Bill To Make Sure Children Are Constantly Surveilled Online
Solving a splinter by amputating the arm
And just think about how this plays out for an LGBTQ child, brought up in a strictly religious family, who wants to use the internet to find like-minded individuals. Under this bill, that information gets reported back to the parents -- and seems way more likely to lead to distress, harm and even possibly suicidal ideation -- because of this bill.
As soon as I saw mention of the bill mandating that parents would be able to spy on everything their kid did online this was the first thing that came to mind, and to call that 'dangerous' is such a massive understatement to the point that even if the parts that demand that platforms keep the other content away from children 'for their own sakes' actually worked that part alone would more than make up for any potential harm they might be spared from.
Kids having zero privacy and rightly feeling that nothing they say or do isn't being watched would be problematic psychologically on it's own but factor in how that knowledge can potentially pose very real danger(mental/physical/emotional) from the parents and you take a bad idea and make it far, far worse and that alone should be enough to show what a disaster this bill is and would be.
On the post: Gift Of Sight Stolen As Medical Implant Company Implodes
Similar to what one of the AC's above noted if there was ever a time to put software and hardware specs into the public domain this would certainly be a prime case, a company going bankrupt should never leave one or more people wondering if they'll be able to continue to see as a result of that.
On the post: Auguste Rodin's Sculptures Are In The Public Domain; 3D Scans Of Them Should Be, Too
Re:
The compelled speech angle is a concerning one but something that just came to me is that if you can just stash something that was slated for the public domain you could effectively completely sidestep fulfilling the creator's half of the deal that is copyright, since you'd have used copyright to secure the exclusivity of a work while that lasted and then when it came time to release it to the public you just decide that nah, it's staying with you.
Copyright law may be one-sided and broken as hell currently but unless the various governments and politicians want to completely drop any pretense that it's meant to serve creators and the public there really needs to be some way to ensure that both parties benefit from it and one side can't just take advantage of their half and then refuse to honor the 'deal' when it comes time to return the favor.
On the post: Alabama Speed Trap Town's PD Called Out On Its Bullshit By Nearby Sheriff, Limps On Without Most Of Its Officers
Re:
Oh what a delightful thought, a judge accustomed to running people through their portion of the town's robbery machine suddenly having defendant after defendant with the utter audacity to contest the charges rather than meekly handing over the money, that must be so vexxing for them.
On the post: Auguste Rodin's Sculptures Are In The Public Domain; 3D Scans Of Them Should Be, Too
Gotta love those conflicts of interest
When those who are supposedly the guardians of society’s cultural patrimony are fighting to stop people from having full and free access to it, it’s clear that copyright’s poison, based on ownership and exclusion, has entered deep into their souls.
The money is probably a much bigger impact on their behavior here, after all if anyone can create replicas then that makes it a lot easier to get one without paying them for it.
On the post: ID.me Doesn't Have Enough Humans To Backstop Its AI, Allowed A Guy In A Bad Wig To Illegally Obtain $900,000 In Benefits
Re: IRS is still using it
Previous article, which is the second link in this one. The relevant quote came from a response to Wyden sending the Treasury Department basically a WTF letter, which prompted the IRS to chime in as follows:
'The IRS announced it will transition away from using a third-party service for facial recognition to help authenticate people creating new online accounts. The transition will occur over the coming weeks in order to prevent larger disruptions to taxpayers during filing season.'
On the post: EARN ITs Big Knowledge 1st Amendment Problem
Re: There's more than one kind of knowledge
The right answer, of course, is "Yeah, I'm sure there's some child porn on every major site. Tough". But nobody seems to have the guts to say that.
That would be far too easy to use against the platform owner, a perhaps better phrasing would be 'Yeah that content is on our platform despite our best efforts to keep it off, if you can come up with a better way to handle it other than telling us to try harder we're all ears'.
That puts the onus on those claiming that more could be done to actually come up with a better way and allows whatever they come up with to be put under scrutiny for viability, with any blame easier to dump on them rather than the platform.
On the post: Alabama Speed Trap Town's PD Called Out On Its Bullshit By Nearby Sheriff, Limps On Without Most Of Its Officers
Brookside will have to adjust to being just another insignificant dot on the road map, rather than an insatiable predator willing to convert residents of other towns into ATMs the PD's band of thieves could hit again and again.
I'm sure they'd like to go back to being considered just another insignificant dot on the map but after national attention to their rampant corruption and the town's apparent refusal to condemn it even now that's probably not what anyone nearby will think when they hear the town's name, and that's assuming they aren't just waiting for the attention to die down before going right back to robbing anyone that makes the mistake of getting near the town.
On the post: Nonprofit Forced To Delete Thousands Of Court Documents Obtained With A Fee Waiver Because PACER Is Greedy And Stupid
'I don't like the frying pan so I dove into the fire.'
Oh thanks for that, with all the bad news these days I needed a laugh ever so badly and that was certainly worth one.
On the post: Alabama Speed Trap Town's PD Called Out On Its Bullshit By Nearby Sheriff, Limps On Without Most Of Its Officers
Re: Felony Corruption Charges??
Highly unlikely, one of the major perks of being a cop other than the ability to rob/assault/murder with near-immunity is that if the heat gets too bad and it's looking like your badge might not be able to save you this time is that you can just quit(at that particular department) and all possible charges just disappear in smoke.
On the post: Nonprofit Forced To Delete Thousands Of Court Documents Obtained With A Fee Waiver Because PACER Is Greedy And Stupid
One rule for me, another for thee
Oh no no no, TOS' are only optional if you work for the government, try to bypass their TOS' and you can be sure they'll treat that as a heinous crime deserving of the most iron-fisted of punishments.
On the post: Nonprofit Forced To Delete Thousands Of Court Documents Obtained With A Fee Waiver Because PACER Is Greedy And Stupid
'How else will be pay for our next flat-screen tv?'
Another fine example of why some things should never be for-profit as it results in all the wrong incentives and behaviors.
On the post: Judge And Jury Say Sarah Palin Failed To Prove 'Actual Malice' In Defamation Case Against The NY Times
'What do you mean we're being sued for again?!'
By all means 'win' that appeal, I can't see lowering the bar for defamation could possibly backfire in spectacular fashion say by, and I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there, making it much, much easier to sue someone(whether individual, company or group) for claiming that you were involved in election fraud...
A lowered bar for defamation would certainly bring a serious chilling of speech against those with power but it would also open the doors for them to be on the receiving end a whole lot more themselves so it would not be a painless 'victory' there.
Next >>