As you don't know who we are, its hard to believe you can know that. But more importantly, what does that matter to this article?
Also, if you serve the President please explain how.
Ah. You have that backwards. The president serves the people. But that is what Trump has done to the country. He has convinced his base that they are his servants, and they cheer him for it.
If a person is not not understood, it is most often the failure of their ability to communicate their ideas, not the failure of those hearing your ideas to understand the medium of communication.
Your comment draws a number of conclusions without even premises from which to draw them. Worse, your conclusion bomb is a mess of confusing prepositions and obfusicating language. It is absolutely your fault that you made a statement that is only understandable to those who are already keyed into the philosophical discussion you are trying to have.
WHY are the player's actions so heavily trusted by the other clients? This is basic state syncing for crying out loud.
Because, unless your game is effectively a streaming service with all gameplay factored on a system fully controlled by the developer/publisher with no inputs from the player, there exists a vector for abuse. State syncing is a complex weaving of the states of various clients, that is constantly anticipating the game state and throwing out bad state data. I am sure for instance that pre-processing attacks (ala Meltdown) could abuse this behavior to screw things up in hard to mitigate ways while maintaining a low-lag environment. But that kind of weaving happens because the server can trust the inputs coming from the client.
I am sure that Rockstar might be able to do some things, like test for client modifications by comparing the executable version to a hash based on a proprietary cryptographic algorithm or some such. But game crackers have been bypassing that kind of check in anti-piracy areas for decades and full verification of hundreds of files over 56GB of data would take longer than I am sure gamers want to wait, which is why we use MD5/SHA-1 Hashing for download verification. VAC-style anticheat software to try to find software running outside the game client which might spoof inputs has been a constant cat and mouse game with a wide margin for false positives which is why VAC was contentious when I was playing on steam.
It may be that ROckstar isn't working on any serious anti-cheat options, or it may be that the openness of the PC platform, a boon to emulation and modding, is continuing to pay dividends in the realm of making cheating impossible to stamp out. Im not into GTA V discussion enough to know. But Id put real permanent technical fixes for cheating on the PC platform as impossible, not merely difficult.
You are using your personal views. As a gamer since the NES days, I certainly have hurled insults and droped when I encountered cheaters in a multiplayer game (GTA V isn't my jam, but Counterstrike, Team Fortress 2, Halo 3, and Rocket League have all been in rotation). While you are extrapolating Personal experience, I can accept that conclusion as generally true.
But it is your view that those 60K average concurrent gamers will not care that bogus extra charges with a far higher penalty than the actual issue (breach of contract) are being stacked on. But I would expect that, like me, there are a number of "actual gamers" who are more broadly concerned with corporate overreach. Not to No True Scotsman my argument here, but there is a significant faction of gamers who took up the hobby before the online FPS and micro transaction boom who are very wary of the overreach of corporations into micromanaging our play that would be concerned with the power we give
Ignoring the absurdity that you are using your personal views to speak for an average of 60K players active online at any given time -
None of the playerbase's views make it legal to abuse copyright to achieve these ends, nor moral to use copyright as a bludgeon to stack monetary damages on to breach of contract claims.
Can you point me to one case in which a backdoor is discovered that can be established as a Chinese Government backdoor? Every case brought forward so far have been industry standard access points that were poorly secured.
As I pointed out above, the US apparently became aware of this 'secret' backdoor where manufacturer access could bypass the normal teleco restrictions in 2009. The same year the NSA is known to have hacked Huawei to install a backdoor into Huawei equipment. It may be this hack revealed the vulnerability. It may be this hack IS the vulnerability. There is no evidence the vulnerability is installed on behalf of the Chinese government, nor that the Chinese government has any particular access that the NSA doesn't also have. If the known back doors the NSA installs in Cisco equipment lead to Cisco being banned in Europe, there would be an uproar from the US despite the evidence of the NSA literally diverting Cisco equipment to install backdoors. Why does the US and NSA backdoors get a pass but Huawei does not?
Re: Re: 'We will uphold the law, even if we have to make it up!'
Much as with claims of moderation bias, your assertion that the political party of the DA is connected to his failure to operate within the law is not supported by evidence.
While the fact that he failed to operate within the law and that he is a democrat are both true, there is no clear causal relationship. The unlawful actions taken do not appear to align with any democratic party positions. Attaching the political alignment to his failures implies that his unlawful actions are somehow derived from or motivated by a partisan political position. But while I think politics plays into the unlawful behavior, it is not a partisan consideration driving the behavior. It is rather appears to be driven by the non-partisan desire to appear 'Tough on Crime' as a DA by improving conviction statistics. This can feed re-election (or in areas where the DA is appointed, the re-election of appointer, which can feed re-appointment), or bids for higher positions both elected and appointed (state or federal legislature, bigger DA offices, State or federal AG, a position as a judge, ect.). When we say this is a both sides thing, it is because the illegal behavior does not feed a Partisan narative based on political platforms.
Your implementation of the Tu Quoque Fallacy to deflect from answering the question at hand is not appreciated. I will assume you recognize the unreasonableness of your policy as highlighted by stone's question and are unable to defend your policy suggestion.
But for those that come later, I will address your 'concern'. It is impossible address your vague, open-ended hypothetical in which a CNN producer chooses to broadcast unknown 'illegal content' in an unknown format. Let us instead try to find a reasonably specific event we can assess.
We will ignore any pre-recorded segment, as in a pre-recorded segment CNN has full control of the content on display and is not analogous to the twitter hypothetical. No one disagrees CNN would hold fault in this situation.
So we have to assume a Live segment. But I really don't need to assess a hypothetical once we get to live TV. We have a historical example. The famous Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson Super Bowl segment.
In this case, without any input from the broadcaster, Justin Timberlake grabbed a portion of Janet Jackson's top, and ripped it off. This resulted in the exposure of Janet Jackson's breast on public broadcast television.
The broadcaster (CBS) was fined. I am against this for the same reasons I am against holding twitter responsible for the content of my feed. Twitter ultimately is unaware of the content of tweets as they appear in my feed. The person who tweeted the illegal content is the one who had control over the content's display.
I am not alone in this thought. A court voided the fine on the basis that CBS was not in control of the display and did not authorize the display. CBS immediately (less than a second after the exposure) switched to a wide aerial shot of the stadium to prevent further broadcast.
So if CNN displayed "illegal content" that was within CNN's control to prevent, yes CNN would be held responsible, just as much as Twitter is already responsible for the content it posts. Twitter is however not aware of the content of posts in your 'Feed', and there is no way to display a feed that is not, in the end, an algorithm. even if its just a chronological display of tweets from subscriptions, Twitter has to collect and collate those tweets via algorithm. At that point by your standards Twitter is responsible for everything on the platform.
The proposal doesn't punish moderation (or censorship). It punishes "political motivation", which as I highlighted above, is nearly impossible to prove. You can prove a bias exists, proving the motivation behind that bias is another thing entirely. An economically motivated bias against Neo-Nazi memes is not a political motivation, for instance.
Thrope has tried to ban university professors from making statements that might, as presented in the article,
"promote division, resentment or social justice toward a race, gender, religion, political affiliation, social class or other class of people."
He also claims a social media bias against conservatives exists. Notably, most evidence presented by people who argue there exists a social media bias against conservatives involves individuals who "promote division [or] resentment...toward a race, gender, [or] religion...". Feels strange that a university professor could not discuss it, but any high school dropout can.
Does that content not impact economic decisions? Can anyone ever prove such a moderation decision was entirely political without any economic considerations? Even someone like Youtuber Steve Shives, who has gone on long rants about how those who disagree with his progressive views can fuck off, that he doesn't want views or money from racists or mysoginists or Nazis and he will ban them and delete their comments....are those only cynical political calculations that his political viewpoint and brand need him to reject these individuals regardless of financial impact or are they genuinely held moral beliefs that are not politically motivated? Based on the Hobby Lobby decision, it would seem the SCOTUS has ruled that it is not for courts to decide the legitimacy of closely held personal beliefs. I see no way to enforce a liability shifting based on "Politically-Motivated Moderation".
As a note: I am going to guess he really wanted to ban the "promotion of...social justice..." and thought by also banning the outright Nazi stuff he might get it through.
More likely, if he pursues a claim for an unlawful imprisonment, he will get credit for time served (2-1/2 years) on his eventual sentance. If he suffered abuse he might get money. Overturning a conviction based on abuses at the hands of the prison is unlikely, as it would not eradicate evidence. The worst is likely a sentencing reduction, rather than declaring his conviction void.
Is anyone saying they are? You seem to be countering criticism of china that has not been leveled. Mike has widely criticized governments for ignoring evidence in policy making, and the rise of the term fake news. In fact, this line from the end of the piece highlights that Mike is, in fact, stating that the criticisms of china in this piece are not china's alone:
Now, some might respond to this that stomping out disinformation online is quite different than Chinese government suppression of information.
You could have made your reasonably valid point about climate scientists being ignored without suggesting that Mike thinks suppressing genuine science as misinformation was unique to china
what economic mechanism should provide such broadband coverage?
Ah the ideological imperative troll. Nice to see you again.
Others have covered that this article doesn't actually call for a 100% coverage mandate, only that current coverage is vastly overstated. That said
In theory, more customers = more money, so 100% coverage is economic best practices. However, real world we recognize that 100% broadband coverage is not an economically feasible option. Rural areas would be unlikely to provide a return on investment and those that do might take too long to provide a roi or provide an roi that is not significant enough to make the investment in the first place.
But, given that the communication and economic benefits provided by internet and broadband are considered important, eliminating cost barriers to infrastructure build outs in un- and underserved areas is considered important. So the US does what governments do. They provide subsidies funded by the taxpayer to fund unprofitable build outs. And while I disagree with the specifics of this policy, we have for decades funded build outs in areas without broadband connectivity, particularly in rural areas to incentivize construction.
This is why accurate assessments of broadband availability are considered important, to determine whether the economic stimulus of subsidies are having the desired effect.
TL;DR: There is normally an economic disincentive to universal broadband, and the government is providing subsidies to counteract that, and understanding the effects of those subsidies are important to determining the effectiveness of those subsidies.
Remind me, what precipitated the ending of long term contracts and the return of uncapped data plans into the mobile market?
Right, second tier carrier T-Mobile not being allowed to merge and choosing to compete to save their long term prospects, ending those things and putting competitive pressure on AT&T and Verizon. The second tier carriers are in the place to make the big disruptive moves to draw off customers from the first tier. A bigger Tmobile would have no reason to introduce newer, disruptive, competitive pricing plans, particularly as they would now have a ton of extra debt from the merger.
This ignores the history of wireless telecom mergers, where any example you can find of 4 carriers merging to three has always resulted in high prices.
The argument is that a bigger Tmobile would be in a better position to bid for more and better spectrum. But there is no technical reason Tmobile and Sprint couldn't, without being a single company, share spectrum. In theory they could, if they really needed to, redesign their networks to treat each other's cell towers as one, with fully shared spectrum on new towers.
You might notice an issue: Tmobile and sprint have tried to buy spectrum jointly, but they still couldn't compete against AT&T and Verizon. Making them one company with less money on hand (Sprint supposedly needs a merger to pay off debts, and the merger saddles Tmobile with a ton of debt) doesn't change that math. The only value in having T-Mobile be 'bigger' is in that spectrum purchasing, and they have to divest spectrum to get this merger done. A partnership would achieve that goal without sacrificing a carrier.
When Pedophiles call their material Sex Abuse, we've won?
Pedophiles who seek out Child Sex Abuse Material often rationalize their behavior, like many criminals. They seek to convice themselves the harm doesn't really exist. Calling it CSAM makes that harder. See my comments above.
Given they just gave a lot of weight to one of the accusations being true the others just got a lot more believable as well, so while they may succeed in using threats to silence people it would seem the damage has already been done thanks to their delightful own-goal.
They really should not want this to go to court. When looking to silence critics, exposing yourself to document discovery including communications between board members has a high likelyhood of backfire.
Your concern over the FBI planting terrabytes of digital evidence onto his server and getting the Wayback Machine to replace genuine conversations with confessions of his crimes doesn't really address the issues at play within this article, nor do you draw any significant conclusions or cite any evidence that might make the base speculation a topic of interest at this time. We will wait for a trial or legal filing to see if that claim is made at trial. But absent you actually trying to converse, just stirring the pot is more spam than discussion.
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:
As you don't know who we are, its hard to believe you can know that. But more importantly, what does that matter to this article?
Ah. You have that backwards. The president serves the people. But that is what Trump has done to the country. He has convinced his base that they are his servants, and they cheer him for it.
On the post: NYPD Lied About National Security During An Attempt To Obtain A Journalist's Records From Twitter
Re: Re: Gotta disagree with Tim on this one
Ah fuck. My browser signed me out. Associate any hate or praise for this with me.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a person is not not understood, it is most often the failure of their ability to communicate their ideas, not the failure of those hearing your ideas to understand the medium of communication.
Your comment draws a number of conclusions without even premises from which to draw them. Worse, your conclusion bomb is a mess of confusing prepositions and obfusicating language. It is absolutely your fault that you made a statement that is only understandable to those who are already keyed into the philosophical discussion you are trying to have.
On the post: Rockstar Joins Other Publishers In Misusing Copyright Law To Go After Cheat Developers For GTA5
Re: Re: Re: Harm, or Awesome?
Because, unless your game is effectively a streaming service with all gameplay factored on a system fully controlled by the developer/publisher with no inputs from the player, there exists a vector for abuse. State syncing is a complex weaving of the states of various clients, that is constantly anticipating the game state and throwing out bad state data. I am sure for instance that pre-processing attacks (ala Meltdown) could abuse this behavior to screw things up in hard to mitigate ways while maintaining a low-lag environment. But that kind of weaving happens because the server can trust the inputs coming from the client.
I am sure that Rockstar might be able to do some things, like test for client modifications by comparing the executable version to a hash based on a proprietary cryptographic algorithm or some such. But game crackers have been bypassing that kind of check in anti-piracy areas for decades and full verification of hundreds of files over 56GB of data would take longer than I am sure gamers want to wait, which is why we use MD5/SHA-1 Hashing for download verification. VAC-style anticheat software to try to find software running outside the game client which might spoof inputs has been a constant cat and mouse game with a wide margin for false positives which is why VAC was contentious when I was playing on steam.
It may be that ROckstar isn't working on any serious anti-cheat options, or it may be that the openness of the PC platform, a boon to emulation and modding, is continuing to pay dividends in the realm of making cheating impossible to stamp out. Im not into GTA V discussion enough to know. But Id put real permanent technical fixes for cheating on the PC platform as impossible, not merely difficult.
On the post: Rockstar Joins Other Publishers In Misusing Copyright Law To Go After Cheat Developers For GTA5
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Harm, or Awesome?
You are using your personal views. As a gamer since the NES days, I certainly have hurled insults and droped when I encountered cheaters in a multiplayer game (GTA V isn't my jam, but Counterstrike, Team Fortress 2, Halo 3, and Rocket League have all been in rotation). While you are extrapolating Personal experience, I can accept that conclusion as generally true.
But it is your view that those 60K average concurrent gamers will not care that bogus extra charges with a far higher penalty than the actual issue (breach of contract) are being stacked on. But I would expect that, like me, there are a number of "actual gamers" who are more broadly concerned with corporate overreach. Not to No True Scotsman my argument here, but there is a significant faction of gamers who took up the hobby before the online FPS and micro transaction boom who are very wary of the overreach of corporations into micromanaging our play that would be concerned with the power we give
On the post: Rockstar Joins Other Publishers In Misusing Copyright Law To Go After Cheat Developers For GTA5
Re: Re: Re: Harm, or Awesome?
Ignoring the absurdity that you are using your personal views to speak for an average of 60K players active online at any given time -
None of the playerbase's views make it legal to abuse copyright to achieve these ends, nor moral to use copyright as a bludgeon to stack monetary damages on to breach of contract claims.
On the post: US Takes Baby Steps Toward Providing Actual Public Evidence Of Huawei Spying
Re: Re: Re:
What is an internet compnay in this discussion? I would not have classified Huawei as an internet Company.
On the post: US Takes Baby Steps Toward Providing Actual Public Evidence Of Huawei Spying
Re:
Can you point me to one case in which a backdoor is discovered that can be established as a Chinese Government backdoor? Every case brought forward so far have been industry standard access points that were poorly secured.
As I pointed out above, the US apparently became aware of this 'secret' backdoor where manufacturer access could bypass the normal teleco restrictions in 2009. The same year the NSA is known to have hacked Huawei to install a backdoor into Huawei equipment. It may be this hack revealed the vulnerability. It may be this hack IS the vulnerability. There is no evidence the vulnerability is installed on behalf of the Chinese government, nor that the Chinese government has any particular access that the NSA doesn't also have. If the known back doors the NSA installs in Cisco equipment lead to Cisco being banned in Europe, there would be an uproar from the US despite the evidence of the NSA literally diverting Cisco equipment to install backdoors. Why does the US and NSA backdoors get a pass but Huawei does not?
On the post: Court To Prosecutors Who Sent Crime Victims Fake Subpoenas Threatening Them With Arrest: Pretty Sure Immunity Doesn't Cover That
Re: Re: 'We will uphold the law, even if we have to make it up!'
Much as with claims of moderation bias, your assertion that the political party of the DA is connected to his failure to operate within the law is not supported by evidence.
While the fact that he failed to operate within the law and that he is a democrat are both true, there is no clear causal relationship. The unlawful actions taken do not appear to align with any democratic party positions. Attaching the political alignment to his failures implies that his unlawful actions are somehow derived from or motivated by a partisan political position. But while I think politics plays into the unlawful behavior, it is not a partisan consideration driving the behavior. It is rather appears to be driven by the non-partisan desire to appear 'Tough on Crime' as a DA by improving conviction statistics. This can feed re-election (or in areas where the DA is appointed, the re-election of appointer, which can feed re-appointment), or bids for higher positions both elected and appointed (state or federal legislature, bigger DA offices, State or federal AG, a position as a judge, ect.). When we say this is a both sides thing, it is because the illegal behavior does not feed a Partisan narative based on political platforms.
On the post: US Takes Baby Steps Toward Providing Actual Public Evidence Of Huawei Spying
I am struck by the implications of this:
Combined with this:
So did they see a Chinese backdoor...or a US one that patched the manufacturer access?
On the post: Arizona Legislator Wants To Strip Platforms Of Section 230 Immunity If They're 'Politically Biased'
Re: Re:
Your implementation of the Tu Quoque Fallacy to deflect from answering the question at hand is not appreciated. I will assume you recognize the unreasonableness of your policy as highlighted by stone's question and are unable to defend your policy suggestion.
But for those that come later, I will address your 'concern'. It is impossible address your vague, open-ended hypothetical in which a CNN producer chooses to broadcast unknown 'illegal content' in an unknown format. Let us instead try to find a reasonably specific event we can assess.
We will ignore any pre-recorded segment, as in a pre-recorded segment CNN has full control of the content on display and is not analogous to the twitter hypothetical. No one disagrees CNN would hold fault in this situation.
So we have to assume a Live segment. But I really don't need to assess a hypothetical once we get to live TV. We have a historical example. The famous Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson Super Bowl segment.
In this case, without any input from the broadcaster, Justin Timberlake grabbed a portion of Janet Jackson's top, and ripped it off. This resulted in the exposure of Janet Jackson's breast on public broadcast television.
The broadcaster (CBS) was fined. I am against this for the same reasons I am against holding twitter responsible for the content of my feed. Twitter ultimately is unaware of the content of tweets as they appear in my feed. The person who tweeted the illegal content is the one who had control over the content's display.
I am not alone in this thought. A court voided the fine on the basis that CBS was not in control of the display and did not authorize the display. CBS immediately (less than a second after the exposure) switched to a wide aerial shot of the stadium to prevent further broadcast.
So if CNN displayed "illegal content" that was within CNN's control to prevent, yes CNN would be held responsible, just as much as Twitter is already responsible for the content it posts. Twitter is however not aware of the content of posts in your 'Feed', and there is no way to display a feed that is not, in the end, an algorithm. even if its just a chronological display of tweets from subscriptions, Twitter has to collect and collate those tweets via algorithm. At that point by your standards Twitter is responsible for everything on the platform.
On the post: Arizona Legislator Wants To Strip Platforms Of Section 230 Immunity If They're 'Politically Biased'
Re: Censorship is protected free speech!
The proposal doesn't punish moderation (or censorship). It punishes "political motivation", which as I highlighted above, is nearly impossible to prove. You can prove a bias exists, proving the motivation behind that bias is another thing entirely. An economically motivated bias against Neo-Nazi memes is not a political motivation, for instance.
On the post: Arizona Legislator Wants To Strip Platforms Of Section 230 Immunity If They're 'Politically Biased'
Thrope has tried to ban university professors from making statements that might, as presented in the article,
Does that content not impact economic decisions? Can anyone ever prove such a moderation decision was entirely political without any economic considerations? Even someone like Youtuber Steve Shives, who has gone on long rants about how those who disagree with his progressive views can fuck off, that he doesn't want views or money from racists or mysoginists or Nazis and he will ban them and delete their comments....are those only cynical political calculations that his political viewpoint and brand need him to reject these individuals regardless of financial impact or are they genuinely held moral beliefs that are not politically motivated? Based on the Hobby Lobby decision, it would seem the SCOTUS has ruled that it is not for courts to decide the legitimacy of closely held personal beliefs. I see no way to enforce a liability shifting based on "Politically-Motivated Moderation".
As a note: I am going to guess he really wanted to ban the "promotion of...social justice..." and thought by also banning the outright Nazi stuff he might get it through.
On the post: Appeals Court Rules That People Can't Be Locked Up Indefinitely For Refusing To Decrypt Devices
Re: He now can sue for rights violations
More likely, if he pursues a claim for an unlawful imprisonment, he will get credit for time served (2-1/2 years) on his eventual sentance. If he suffered abuse he might get money. Overturning a conviction based on abuses at the hands of the prison is unlikely, as it would not eradicate evidence. The worst is likely a sentencing reduction, rather than declaring his conviction void.
On the post: When You Set Out To Block Misinformation, You Can Wind Up Blocking A Hero Like Li Wenliang
Re:
Is anyone saying they are? You seem to be countering criticism of china that has not been leveled. Mike has widely criticized governments for ignoring evidence in policy making, and the rise of the term fake news. In fact, this line from the end of the piece highlights that Mike is, in fact, stating that the criticisms of china in this piece are not china's alone:
On the post: US Broadband Gaps Are Twice As Bad As The Government Claims
Re: 100% coverage
Ah the ideological imperative troll. Nice to see you again.
Others have covered that this article doesn't actually call for a 100% coverage mandate, only that current coverage is vastly overstated. That said
In theory, more customers = more money, so 100% coverage is economic best practices. However, real world we recognize that 100% broadband coverage is not an economically feasible option. Rural areas would be unlikely to provide a return on investment and those that do might take too long to provide a roi or provide an roi that is not significant enough to make the investment in the first place.
But, given that the communication and economic benefits provided by internet and broadband are considered important, eliminating cost barriers to infrastructure build outs in un- and underserved areas is considered important. So the US does what governments do. They provide subsidies funded by the taxpayer to fund unprofitable build outs. And while I disagree with the specifics of this policy, we have for decades funded build outs in areas without broadband connectivity, particularly in rural areas to incentivize construction.
This is why accurate assessments of broadband availability are considered important, to determine whether the economic stimulus of subsidies are having the desired effect.
TL;DR: There is normally an economic disincentive to universal broadband, and the government is providing subsidies to counteract that, and understanding the effects of those subsidies are important to determining the effectiveness of those subsidies.
On the post: 5G Could Actually Make The 'Digital Divide' Worse
Re:
Remind me, what precipitated the ending of long term contracts and the return of uncapped data plans into the mobile market?
Right, second tier carrier T-Mobile not being allowed to merge and choosing to compete to save their long term prospects, ending those things and putting competitive pressure on AT&T and Verizon. The second tier carriers are in the place to make the big disruptive moves to draw off customers from the first tier. A bigger Tmobile would have no reason to introduce newer, disruptive, competitive pricing plans, particularly as they would now have a ton of extra debt from the merger.
This ignores the history of wireless telecom mergers, where any example you can find of 4 carriers merging to three has always resulted in high prices.
The argument is that a bigger Tmobile would be in a better position to bid for more and better spectrum. But there is no technical reason Tmobile and Sprint couldn't, without being a single company, share spectrum. In theory they could, if they really needed to, redesign their networks to treat each other's cell towers as one, with fully shared spectrum on new towers.
You might notice an issue: Tmobile and sprint have tried to buy spectrum jointly, but they still couldn't compete against AT&T and Verizon. Making them one company with less money on hand (Sprint supposedly needs a merger to pay off debts, and the merger saddles Tmobile with a ton of debt) doesn't change that math. The only value in having T-Mobile be 'bigger' is in that spectrum purchasing, and they have to divest spectrum to get this merger done. A partnership would achieve that goal without sacrificing a carrier.
On the post: Lindsey Graham's Sneak Attack On Section 230 And Encryption: A Backdoor To A Backdoor?
RE: When they call it CSAM
When Pedophiles call their material Sex Abuse, we've won?
Pedophiles who seek out Child Sex Abuse Material often rationalize their behavior, like many criminals. They seek to convice themselves the harm doesn't really exist. Calling it CSAM makes that harder. See my comments above.
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Re: Ah if only...
They really should not want this to go to court. When looking to silence critics, exposing yourself to document discovery including communications between board members has a high likelyhood of backfire.
On the post: Letter To Judge Details Vault 7 Leaker's Post-Incarceration Leaking
Re: Seems convenient.
Your concern over the FBI planting terrabytes of digital evidence onto his server and getting the Wayback Machine to replace genuine conversations with confessions of his crimes doesn't really address the issues at play within this article, nor do you draw any significant conclusions or cite any evidence that might make the base speculation a topic of interest at this time. We will wait for a trial or legal filing to see if that claim is made at trial. But absent you actually trying to converse, just stirring the pot is more spam than discussion.
Next >>