The term "anonymized" is shaping up to be another deceptive term, akin to "unlimited data plan" or "all-natural". As soon as someone starts trying to sell you on this, know that they're probably trying to con you into giving up your privacy.
First, in my specific situation, we were in an office surrounded by desk phones. Due to the sensitive nature of the work we did, it was actually prohibited to pull out a cell phone for fear of pictures being taken. If you had to call the school, go ahead from the desk phone. Second, the number was 5.
The original idea of the program was to provide a first phone line for households that were too poor to afford even one. If you're really in that situation tho, you probably shouldn't own two of the latest iPhone, and this now being the third mobile phone in the house means that the program is just a big corporate giveaway. So, yeah it was fraud that I witnessed, and there's a lot more going on than just the one place I worked at. Very common, and very obvious.
The program was filled with fraud. The people who I knew that had it were giving the Obamaphones to their kids to take to school, while they themselves had an iPhone.
Citizens have a problem with this. Not that they can do much about it. Lawsuits are often futile and law enforcement officials support this harassment with unchallenged and unverified claims about "crime prevention," which seems to talk most local legislators out of engaging in much oversight.
I'm kind of surprised that more local mayors haven't run on an anti-traffic stop platform. Anti-speeding cameras seemed to have been popular a few years back in my area, then they went away and so problem solved. Traffic stops are just designed to make profits for the local police department, not improve safety, and everyone knows it's just a fraud. I have to believe that a lot of challengers could boost themselves ahead of a long-time incumbent on just this one issue alone.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Orwell Books Were Warnings, Not Instruct
You do know that your stated opinion here is that government agents should be able to release their personal opinion in order to undermine a democratic election unchallenged,
Yes, even people who currently work for the government enjoy the right to free speech, and can do so even if you disagree.
while private citizens should not be able to counter that with their own speech
Who says that private citizens should not be allowed to express certain opinions? Certainty not me, and I would oppose that. Currently, only the leftists seek to supress particular speech with which they disagree.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Orwell Books Were Warnings, Not Instructions
No, we're asking that people be allowed to form their own opinion based on factual information, rather than dangerous propaganda that's calling for violence if an honest election goes a certain way.
Noone gets to decide what information is too dangerous to be released to the public in a free society.
Re: Re: Orwell Books Were Warnings, Not Instructions
which begs the question why you think it's wrong to point out the lies and and criticize those who unquestionably promulgates the lies?
I think you should be free to criticize all you want. But that's not what's happening. Leftists censors are demanding that events not even be covered at all, such that individuals ought not be allowed to form their own opinion.
That already exists, with Facebook and Twitter, versus Gab and Parler. Guess what, the moderated sites are more popular.
That's why I mentioned "near monopoly" and the Network Effect. We've seen how certain products aren't more widely used because they have more useful features, but instead because they created a large network first. Despite the ubiquity, many are clamoring for a break-up of the big tech companies. It's a sign of discontentment with the Network Effect.
It’s likely that our political leaders already know this. If, by chance, they were able to agree and Section 230 disappeared tomorrow, websites would be left with two choices. They can moderate at an incredibly high rate to attempt to avoid liability, thus angering Republicans. Or, they can choose to not moderate at all, leaving any conspiracy theory, offensive speech or disinformation up, which would certainly anger Democrats.
I think that this is exactly what is needed: more models, rather than a one-sized-fits-all platform with a near monopoly. Have a platform that censors just about anything. Another platform can be open. If viewers encounter speech with which they disagree, then they can instead use the site/app that deals with it to their liking. Just don't give any one product the dual advantage of being a publisher and a platform at the same time, because it will result in the Network Effect.
>I'm curious as to why you'd want (or at least be satisfied with) the law applying by whether or not the site is commercial, as opposed to the size of the site's audience/membership.?
While I definitely have a problem with a commercial platform being able to editorialize through censorship, I probably also would have a problem with a sufficiently large "private" owned platform as well. It seems to me that only a small, private forum is incapable of large scale coordinated censorship.
So would you be satisfied if the changes you want were applied just to large social media sites like Twitter and Facebook? Or would you want it to apply to every social media type site, including things like the comments section of personal blogs, pro-LGBT forums, anti-LGBT forums, and so on?
Your personal blog need not become a commercial platform.
So you want to change a policy to force private property to host compelled speech?
If you have an open platform, whereby any American can discuss anything, then the speech is not compelled. The corporation has simply created an internet version of a town hall or town square. The speech that occurs is that of the speaker, not the property owner. And Americans are plenty smart to realize and understand that.
Dude, you hate the 1st Amendment.
You are the one supporting censorship. I support fully open discussion for all Americans. I sense that some of the leftists here are growing uneasy with their loss of traditional free speech allies. Yesterday it was Glen Greenwald. Today Will Chamberlain. Folks are starting to see how morally ugly your position has become.
"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."
Twitter said that the NY Post violated the Twitter Rules, which is neither false nor defamatory.
Twitter has changed their story. Originally, there was no reason. Then, they decided that it violated their rules against releasing content that was "hacked". Then, when they learned that the information came from a laptop that is now owned by the computer repair shop owner due to non-payment from a signed service contract, once again there is no reason. Dorsey himself has admitted that during congressional testimony the other day.
I'd like to call people's attention to the real oppression going on here. I am not allowed to post my opinions on the front page of the Human Events website operated by Will Chamberlain, therefore I am being deprived of my free speech.
The hollywood executives believe that it is their ideas that are the genius. If they don't get to pick and choose what people want to watch, then there is no hierarchy to justify their large salaries. Thanks to the internet, there is no reason to pick and choose what entertainment does or doesn't get shown. Once upon a time, the number of shows that could be funded and shown on TV or movie format was finite. Nowadays, there's no need for that decision maker.
And for what legal reason should ANY company be dragged into court for (political) bias? Should ALL companies be totally neutral? Or just a select few that you don't agree with?
The danger to free speech is allowing monopolistic corporations to build the internet version of the town hall, and then ban viewpoints with which they disagree. I say that companies should be forced to choose whether they are an open or closed platform. Open platforms ought to maintain neutrality. Closed platforms can choose whatever it is that they want to publish, but are held responsible as the publisher.
Here is my attempt:
npov - Water is wet
possible counter to claim - not when it's frozen! Bias!!!!!!
And dont forget the counter-counter claim: frozen h2o is no longer water, it's ice!
Neutral Point of View: allow arguments from both sides to remain visible. Let both sides speak.
Biased Point of View: Site operator takes a side. Fact check: h2o is always wet, according to Snopes. The post about freezing has been removed due to policy violations.
On the post: It Took Just 5 Minutes Of Movement Data To Identify 'Anonymous' VR Users
Misleading Marketing
The term "anonymized" is shaping up to be another deceptive term, akin to "unlimited data plan" or "all-natural". As soon as someone starts trying to sell you on this, know that they're probably trying to con you into giving up your privacy.
On the post: Merger 'Synergies' Force T-Mobile To Pay $200 Million Fine For Sprint Falsehoods
Re: Re: Re:
First, in my specific situation, we were in an office surrounded by desk phones. Due to the sensitive nature of the work we did, it was actually prohibited to pull out a cell phone for fear of pictures being taken. If you had to call the school, go ahead from the desk phone. Second, the number was 5.
The original idea of the program was to provide a first phone line for households that were too poor to afford even one. If you're really in that situation tho, you probably shouldn't own two of the latest iPhone, and this now being the third mobile phone in the house means that the program is just a big corporate giveaway. So, yeah it was fraud that I witnessed, and there's a lot more going on than just the one place I worked at. Very common, and very obvious.
On the post: Merger 'Synergies' Force T-Mobile To Pay $200 Million Fine For Sprint Falsehoods
Re:
The program was filled with fraud. The people who I knew that had it were giving the Obamaphones to their kids to take to school, while they themselves had an iPhone.
On the post: Texas Cops Engage In Millions Of Roadside Searches, Find Nothing Illegal 80 Percent Of The Time
Maybe
I'm kind of surprised that more local mayors haven't run on an anti-traffic stop platform. Anti-speeding cameras seemed to have been popular a few years back in my area, then they went away and so problem solved. Traffic stops are just designed to make profits for the local police department, not improve safety, and everyone knows it's just a fraud. I have to believe that a lot of challengers could boost themselves ahead of a long-time incumbent on just this one issue alone.
On the post: While Social Media Was Quick To Highlight And Limit The Spread Of False Claims Of Election Victory, Traditional Media Just Let It Flow
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Orwell Books Were Warnings, Not Instruct
Yes, even people who currently work for the government enjoy the right to free speech, and can do so even if you disagree.
Who says that private citizens should not be allowed to express certain opinions? Certainty not me, and I would oppose that. Currently, only the leftists seek to supress particular speech with which they disagree.
On the post: While Social Media Was Quick To Highlight And Limit The Spread Of False Claims Of Election Victory, Traditional Media Just Let It Flow
Re: Re: Re: Re: Orwell Books Were Warnings, Not Instructions
Noone gets to decide what information is too dangerous to be released to the public in a free society.
On the post: While Social Media Was Quick To Highlight And Limit The Spread Of False Claims Of Election Victory, Traditional Media Just Let It Flow
Re: Re: Orwell Books Were Warnings, Not Instructions
I think you should be free to criticize all you want. But that's not what's happening. Leftists censors are demanding that events not even be covered at all, such that individuals ought not be allowed to form their own opinion.
On the post: While Social Media Was Quick To Highlight And Limit The Spread Of False Claims Of Election Victory, Traditional Media Just Let It Flow
Orwell Books Were Warnings, Not Instructions
It is not a good sign for freedom when supposed technology advocates are demanding a Ministry of Truth.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Fix Politicians' Issues With Section 230
Re: Re: Competition
That's why I mentioned "near monopoly" and the Network Effect. We've seen how certain products aren't more widely used because they have more useful features, but instead because they created a large network first. Despite the ubiquity, many are clamoring for a break-up of the big tech companies. It's a sign of discontentment with the Network Effect.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Fix Politicians' Issues With Section 230
Competition
I think that this is exactly what is needed: more models, rather than a one-sized-fits-all platform with a near monopoly. Have a platform that censors just about anything. Another platform can be open. If viewers encounter speech with which they disagree, then they can instead use the site/app that deals with it to their liking. Just don't give any one product the dual advantage of being a publisher and a platform at the same time, because it will result in the Network Effect.
On the post: Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While I definitely have a problem with a commercial platform being able to editorialize through censorship, I probably also would have a problem with a sufficiently large "private" owned platform as well. It seems to me that only a small, private forum is incapable of large scale coordinated censorship.
On the post: Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your personal blog need not become a commercial platform.
On the post: Nixon Scandal Resulted In A Law To Prevent The Politicization Of Antitrust Cases; Meanwhile Trump Uses His Politicized Antitrust Effort In Campaign Ad
The bias is clear
In any other administration in history, corporations wouldn't be censoring the President of the United States of America.
On the post: Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you have an open platform, whereby any American can discuss anything, then the speech is not compelled. The corporation has simply created an internet version of a town hall or town square. The speech that occurs is that of the speaker, not the property owner. And Americans are plenty smart to realize and understand that.
You are the one supporting censorship. I support fully open discussion for all Americans. I sense that some of the leftists here are growing uneasy with their loss of traditional free speech allies. Yesterday it was Glen Greenwald. Today Will Chamberlain. Folks are starting to see how morally ugly your position has become.
"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."
On the post: Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions
Re: Re: Re:
If there is CURRENTLY no distinction in the law, it does not mean that we are not allowed to want it. That is why we want to reform Section 230.
On the post: Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions
Re: Re: otherwise objectionable
Twitter has changed their story. Originally, there was no reason. Then, they decided that it violated their rules against releasing content that was "hacked". Then, when they learned that the information came from a laptop that is now owned by the computer repair shop owner due to non-payment from a signed service contract, once again there is no reason. Dorsey himself has admitted that during congressional testimony the other day.
On the post: Free Market Advocate Switches Sides, Calls For Direct Government Interference In Online Moderation Decisions
Re:
Human Events is a publisher, not a platform.
On the post: A Quick Bite Post Mortem For For Quibi: Hollywood Still Doesn't Get The Internet
Top Down Model
The hollywood executives believe that it is their ideas that are the genius. If they don't get to pick and choose what people want to watch, then there is no hierarchy to justify their large salaries. Thanks to the internet, there is no reason to pick and choose what entertainment does or doesn't get shown. Once upon a time, the number of shows that could be funded and shown on TV or movie format was finite. Nowadays, there's no need for that decision maker.
On the post: Transparency Is Important; Mandated Transparency Is Dangerous And Will Stifle Innovation And Competition
Re: Re: Path to Litigation
The danger to free speech is allowing monopolistic corporations to build the internet version of the town hall, and then ban viewpoints with which they disagree. I say that companies should be forced to choose whether they are an open or closed platform. Open platforms ought to maintain neutrality. Closed platforms can choose whatever it is that they want to publish, but are held responsible as the publisher.
On the post: Transparency Is Important; Mandated Transparency Is Dangerous And Will Stifle Innovation And Competition
Re: Re: Path to Litigation
And dont forget the counter-counter claim: frozen h2o is no longer water, it's ice!
Neutral Point of View: allow arguments from both sides to remain visible. Let both sides speak.
Biased Point of View: Site operator takes a side. Fact check: h2o is always wet, according to Snopes. The post about freezing has been removed due to policy violations.
Next >>