I'm 99% certain that a majority of you have seen the loopholes provided, but you're taking the easy way out. Let me elucidate:
Facebook (and no, not Facebutt, but perhaps Buttbook, per the suggestion above) and the rest should simply go ahead and implement policies to comply with this (1A-hating) law. Why? Because they have an easy get-out-of-crap-like-this-free card. All they need to do is write a few words to the effect of:
Policy: If we don't like you, you're out of here.
Policy: If you post something that we don't like, you're out of here - even if we used to like you.
Policy: Our algorithms are ours alone, and they are Federally protected trade secrets. At no time will they be released to anyone for review, regardless of a requester's personal status.
Policy: We may, from time to time as we see fit, release to the public at large certain data regarding the removal of users from our private holdings. Such data will be anonymized where appropriate.
Policy: As a user of our service, you are automatically subject to all of our stated policies. If you wish to opt out of any of these Policies, you know where the door is.
Please see our Policies web page for further details. Additionally, we won't push any updates to you, you need to go there and read them, if you're curious. And finally, there are NO special categories, classes, groups or any other manner of segregation of users. This is a one-size-fits-all Policy Statement.
Any additions or other suggestions? Remember, the more "lawyerly", the wording, the greater the chance for creating a loophole - just like those NJ bozos did. In my estimation, simpler is better. IOW, if the average sixth-grader can understand it, then there should be no problems.
Oh, wait... I momentarily forgot - politicians of the NJ stripe have yet to reach either the comprehension or maturity level of an average sixth-grader. My bad, please forgive me.
I recall thinking at the time that Fauci should've told Paul "Listen, what to you say we make a deal. I won't do eye surgery on anyone, and you don't do virology or immunology on the country, OK? Each of us sticks to our respective areas of expertise, and no gets hurt - doesn't that seem like a good thing to you?"
This thread has seen more than 90 responses to Koby and at least one AC (perhaps more than one, who can tell). The fact that we need to keep refuting his/their nonsense strongly suggests that only one facepalm just won't do the job.
Considering some countries in the world demand social media user credentials prior to entry, I'd say there's quite a bit that should make them common carriers.
You don't need to enter that country, simple as that. Required for your job? Get your employer to either obtain an exemption, or else send someone else.
There are also some businesses that won't even look at an application without social media references.
The odds are that there's another business just down the street that won't have such a restriction. But more to the point, if the Internet and/or social media should be classified as a common carrier, then let's put the shoe on the other foot - why should I have to prove that I have electricity or running water at my home, just to get a job?
For some people FB is the cheapest means they have to communicate with others.
Those would be people who ignored what their ISP said about a free email account being included with their service. FB might not charge you for sending messages, at least not money, but they sure get their money's worth out of your communications, trust me on that one.
For some people FB is the cheapest means they have to communicate with others.
Do I really need to point you to the above response?
I've personally had a class in high school where we were guaranteed a failing grade if we didn't have a known social media account linked to the class's feed.
Well now we're getting somewhere. At least I am. What you suffered in high school was a lack of exposure to the law. Absolutely nowhere, at no time, has any law every been passed, nor a court case upheld the notion that a student (underage or otherwise) lose any rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country. You do NOT have to have a social media account in order to attend school, nor to gain the advantages of state-mandated schooling. Next time you hear "no account = no passing grads", tell them to go pinch a loaf and fall back in it.
I can get by without FB, Twitter, etc,
Thanks for dating yourself.
That's not dating one's self, that's just good common sense. I've been online longer that you've been drawing breath, and I'm still getting along just fine with people all over the world. Whether friends, business associates, transportation facilities, or what-have-you, no one I need/want to deal with requires me to have a social media account. And yet they all still respect me for the person I am, not some shabby straw-man with a keyboard and a screen. (OK, OK, businesses only respect me for the money I spend with them, I'm sorrry.)
Unfortunately.... there are many people.... that use FB, Twitter, etc. as their primary means of communication with others.
Well, it would be unfortunate that I have to watch my fellow man suffer the consequences of their own stupidity, but that is their prerogative. Still and all, using FB is certainly not the only way to communicate, nor is it required for communication in any sense of the word. See (yet again) my response above.
If we were to go back a few centuries, we'd find that the concept of "common carrier" had a very different meaning than it does today.
Nope. The concept is well defined, and you're correct, it does go back almost 200 years - the railroads. But as we're applying it to the internet and social media today, we're comparing it to the most recent example, our regulated electricity, water, sewer and possibly garbage collection utilities. Your idea of "changes over time" doesn't hold water because it's still a matter of government regulation over an otherwise monopolistic realm.
Why should only industries you approve of be considered essential services?
Oops, we're getting personal here. It's not my approval, it's society's approval with which you disagree. I didn't get a choice, but I'm living with society's choices just fine. Should the majority of society choose to elect to regulate the internet for some reason, I'd have to go along with it, regardless of my personal likes or dislikes.
And where is it written that social media is required to provide an audience for everybody.
Where is it written that you should be entitled to electrical service? Or telephone service? Or Education for children? Or Fire / Police / EMS service?
All of those are written into my State's Constitution. In fact, I'm required by that very same piece of paper to attend school until I'm 16 years of age. Education is funded by taxes laid upon society in general, apportioned in some manner between the citizenry and businesses. The other utilities are required to be presented to me, but I'm not required to take them. And if I do want/take them, then I need to meet additional conditions, such as paying for what I use out of my own pocket.
Or Social Security / Medicaid? (That's a fun one!)
No fun at all, it's required by law. In fact, because I'm subject to these "societal benefits", I happen to know that I'm not required to take advantage of them, but I certainly can choose to do so.
Complaining that you don't use it and therefore it shouldn't be up for discussion isn't a valid argument.
Where the Hell did that come from? I mean, left field bleachers isn't even close to a valid location.
Your last paragraph contains statements of fact for which no logical argument can be presented.
I called out SoDak because the summary specifically called out that State, and specifically, its constitution. But yes, I'm sure they're not the only State in the Union to think that it's proper to treat their citizens this way.
Almost every court has considered this the cost of doing government business -- something taxpayers are always asked to cover. If officers have a law enforcement reason to raze houses, the cost must be borne by those unhoused.
If devaluing a private property during an attempt to benefit the public by removing a potential menace to the community doesn't fall under the rubric of 'eminent domain', then I don't know what does. It's a taking, and calling it anything else is pure boolshit, make no mistake. Glad I don't live in SoDak.
Because they're on the losing side in a war of attrition. They need for the internet to go away so they can regain their "king of the mountain" position that they had before electricity was discovered by none other than Tim Berners-Lee.
To be fair and correct, Ziff-Davis has nothing to do with WIRED, which is owned by Conde Nast. ZD started in 1927, and has annual revenues of half a billion bucks. CN started in 1909, and has annual revenues of 1 & 1/2 billion dollars. ZD employee count is about 1,000, CD runs to 6,000.
ZD owns PCMag.com (which sprang from the print edition called PC Magazine), and that print edition was born in 1982. Wired as a magazine didn't start until 1993.
More fun facts can be found at an internet near you! ;)
Forgot one - you can always take out an ad in the local paper, or even radio, TV, magazines, and of course, internet sites. Our intrepid politician can avoid only so much material from so many sources, but if the job is planned correctly, he'll eventually get the message that you wanted to impart in the first place.
I loved it! Lawyers are gonna be up in arms over parts of it, but I thought you hit the nail on the head.
Personal responsibility is dead.
Ain't that the truth. Evasion of personal responsibility is not only alive and well, it's publicly endorsed every day by certain immoral, unethical and downright stupid politicians. Some of whom are still in power, and some who are recently out of power.
.... even if a person told you they'd give you $1000 for exceeding safe speeds, you're still liable for your own actions.
This!
The State has only one position, held since the beginning of vehicular movement - public safety. From that, we see it reduced to one simple statement - you are responsible for your actions, period. No matter what outside influence might occur, you are responsible. A mitigating circumstance might be a mechanical failure, or an act of nature, things that no reasonable person could expect a human to deal with in the desired fashion. But if that kind of thing doesn't obtain, then the onus is on the driver to act responsibly, pure and simple.
If a real live person had been in the passenger seat and offered the kilobuck to exceed the speed limit, said passenger is only an instigating factor, not the root primary cause of the action. Well, not unless he had physical control of the driver's muscles, then a case could be made that the passenger is indeed to blame. Short of that....
Now, that's the State's position, which is an action in the name of The People. We now turn to a private action. Herein, we see the plaintiff (the parents) attempting to bypass the State's mandate to drive responsibly. The premise is that the parents would not have suffered a loss if Snap had not made a product that they deem to be unsafe (and with which the 9th Circuit agrees). This speaks directly to them feeling that their son was entitled by Snap to drive irresponsibly, for any reason at all, let alone for an alleged reward. But that goes directly against the State's mandate. The word used in the suit was "Induced", but the effective word is "entitled" - the State will see it no other way. And from that, the case will fail. Nobody has the right to claim immunity from the responsibility laid upon them by the State just because someone (passenger, software, what-have-you) said "let's see how fast it can go". Nobody. Period.
I was thinking that after all these comments, I'd be the first to point this out, but Darkness Of Course has beat me to it.
Now you all know that I'm an asshole-hater of the first stripe, make no mistake. Number Two on my shit-list are those people who want their cake and be able to eat it too. I can't get away with that, so I don't like it when others try it. Hence I get a "two-fer" here, in the following diatribe.
So how is it that we here on TD, myself included, repeat ad nauseum that 1A does not give a person the right to force other people to listen to him/her... and yet the courts, who are 1/3 of the government and thus subject to 1A's restrictions, can force public officials to listen to persons with whom they don't want to associate???? Do recall that nowhere in the Constitution, nor in any Amendment, does it differentiate that a public servant becomes subject to a different standard vis-a-vis association with others (peaceful assembly, the language in 1A) - said personage still has full 1A rights, period. For the court(s) to declare otherwise is itself repugnant to the Constitution.
But moreover..... as we've said, all of us, #45 was never "kicked off the internet", because he always had alternative means to accomplish his goals (to be heard, errr, I mean to spout drivel (strike-through markdown needed!!)). Same here - if a citizen wants to communicate with Paxton, then he can either write a letter, use the telephone, send a telegram, hire a courier, or even buttonhole him at the lunch counter. Any and all of these methods (all of which were common before the rise of the internet) is viable. And when these seem fruitless, well then, you've got my personal favorite - simply attend one of his campaign speeches, and disrupt it - that'll get some attention.
And of course there's the final arbiter - the ballot box. You can be pretty certain that in most places in this country, if a public servant wants to continue in his/her position, they are going to listen to at least some of the constituency - if they cut off everyone (particularly after an outbreak of bad publicity), then they're going to find out why that's not a good idea the next time the ballot box is open for business. Hell, if you're tired of his crap now and can't wait, start a recall petition - that will also get some unwanted attention, won't it though.
While many readers (above) have given good reasons for this being a compete clusterfsck, the one and only reason it won't work is commerce. When one big business corporation gets accused of criminal operations, they tend to unleash some pretty powerful legal talent. When nearly all of the big businesses in the country are so accused (either by proxy or directly), you can bet that the government will be tied up in court for so long that their children will still be fighting for this "everyone's a criminal unless we say so" cause.
Trade secrets, contract negotiations, employment discussions, business practices, and myriad other commercial activities that take place over the internet are all encrypted, about as highly so as practicable (meaning, without creating so much hindrance as to make it too big of a PITA to use.) If you tell big business that they can't keep those things secret, then the stinky stuff will most certainly hit the rotating ventilation device at a record-breaking speed. If I were a big business in Oz right now, I'd be letting it known, publicly, that I intend to ignore such a hostile, not-for-public-benefit law, no matter how it's couched in pretty language. Then I'd tell the ruling party and it's stooges to "see me in court".
I have a sneaking suspicion that both the US and the UK are behind this, or at least highly on-board with it. I can see where, if Australia makes this a law that withstands court challenges, then every country on the planet that espouses themselves to be "free" will be jumping to do the same thing, "because Australia is doing it, so we can too!!"
Parting shot: I'm quite doubtful that anyone could point out to me a single member of either this Commission, or the entire Aussie Parliament, that knows the difference between a code and a cypher. 'Nuff said.
.... why the hell cant Pai be prosecuted for what he did?
Two words: Qualified Immunity.
You can thank the USSC for that one. You can communicate with your Congresscritter to let them know that you want them to pass the bill that will end this kind of crap. Don't know if it will do any good, but it's a guarantee that if you don't, the bill's chances of success is that much lower, eh?
Re: 'We're not doing X, we just want the power to do X for reaso
Better idea: If the goal is to get more canadian content on major platforms create a fund that can be tapped by canadian content creators to make shows, art, music and whatnot that's good enough that those major platforms want it. If your content is good and desirable you don't need to force it onto a platform, they'll be happy to host it and reap the benefits from doing so, trying to force the issue just sends the message that they don't have anything of worth and know it, which... is not a good look.
That's actually a good idea, it gets my squeal of approval! :)
if someone like me from the other side of the Atlantic can immediately spot massive holes in the argument he's making to defend his bill, why can't the locals writing the bill?
Because:
... getting major audio and video services like Netflix and Spotify to support Canadian content the way traditional broadcasters are required to...
This certainly passes the Smell Test. That rule about "5% of all content must originate in Canada" comes from the exact same people who populate France and it's lonely outpost, Quebec. IOW, (and this is an exact quote): "They're stealing our culture by English-izing our beautiful French language". You can guess how I feel about that one.
It shouldn't take too long for a search engine to cough up the number of Canadian-born actors who made it big in Hollywood, first or otherwise.
I can only hope that every YT channel operator, Canadian or otherwise, starts including episodes of The Hosers, that'd tickle me pink. Oh, and throw in some Red Green while they're at it.
But the sad fact is, where "broadcasting" for revenue or otherwise means that the viewer is locked in to what the originator is putting out, a YT viewer can pick and choose what he/she wants to see - nothing the Canadian Government can do will be able to force a viewer (from anywhere!) to pick and view any particular content, regardless of where it originated. Perhaps... unless they start operating some kind of lottery, where the winning numbers are shown within some particular video, one that gets taken down once a winner comes forth. That just might justify picking and choosing to view a Canadian-born vid.... but it's a stretch, I admit.
On the post: New Jersey State Legislators Think They Can Get Trump Back On Facebook By Passing A Stupid Social Media Moderation Bill
Against the grain, again....
Yeah, I'm gonna go that way.
I'm 99% certain that a majority of you have seen the loopholes provided, but you're taking the easy way out. Let me elucidate:
Facebook (and no, not Facebutt, but perhaps Buttbook, per the suggestion above) and the rest should simply go ahead and implement policies to comply with this (1A-hating) law. Why? Because they have an easy get-out-of-crap-like-this-free card. All they need to do is write a few words to the effect of:
Policy: If we don't like you, you're out of here.
Policy: If you post something that we don't like, you're out of here - even if we used to like you.
Policy: Our algorithms are ours alone, and they are Federally protected trade secrets. At no time will they be released to anyone for review, regardless of a requester's personal status.
Policy: We may, from time to time as we see fit, release to the public at large certain data regarding the removal of users from our private holdings. Such data will be anonymized where appropriate.
Policy: As a user of our service, you are automatically subject to all of our stated policies. If you wish to opt out of any of these Policies, you know where the door is.
Please see our Policies web page for further details. Additionally, we won't push any updates to you, you need to go there and read them, if you're curious. And finally, there are NO special categories, classes, groups or any other manner of segregation of users. This is a one-size-fits-all Policy Statement.
Any additions or other suggestions? Remember, the more "lawyerly", the wording, the greater the chance for creating a loophole - just like those NJ bozos did. In my estimation, simpler is better. IOW, if the average sixth-grader can understand it, then there should be no problems.
Oh, wait... I momentarily forgot - politicians of the NJ stripe have yet to reach either the comprehension or maturity level of an average sixth-grader. My bad, please forgive me.
On the post: Michigan Legislator With No Understanding Of The 1st Amendment Wants To Fine Fact Checkers For Pointing Out His Lies
Re:
Gonna hafta upvote that one!
On the post: Michigan Legislator With No Understanding Of The 1st Amendment Wants To Fine Fact Checkers For Pointing Out His Lies
Re:
I recall thinking at the time that Fauci should've told Paul "Listen, what to you say we make a deal. I won't do eye surgery on anyone, and you don't do virology or immunology on the country, OK? Each of us sticks to our respective areas of expertise, and no gets hurt - doesn't that seem like a good thing to you?"
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
This thread has seen more than 90 responses to Koby and at least one AC (perhaps more than one, who can tell). The fact that we need to keep refuting his/their nonsense strongly suggests that only one facepalm just won't do the job.
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re: Re: Re: We Knew It Was Just Political
Jeebus, AC, I don't know where to begin....
OK, from the top:
You don't need to enter that country, simple as that. Required for your job? Get your employer to either obtain an exemption, or else send someone else.
The odds are that there's another business just down the street that won't have such a restriction. But more to the point, if the Internet and/or social media should be classified as a common carrier, then let's put the shoe on the other foot - why should I have to prove that I have electricity or running water at my home, just to get a job?
Those would be people who ignored what their ISP said about a free email account being included with their service. FB might not charge you for sending messages, at least not money, but they sure get their money's worth out of your communications, trust me on that one.
Do I really need to point you to the above response?
Well now we're getting somewhere. At least I am. What you suffered in high school was a lack of exposure to the law. Absolutely nowhere, at no time, has any law every been passed, nor a court case upheld the notion that a student (underage or otherwise) lose any rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country. You do NOT have to have a social media account in order to attend school, nor to gain the advantages of state-mandated schooling. Next time you hear "no account = no passing grads", tell them to go pinch a loaf and fall back in it.
That's not dating one's self, that's just good common sense. I've been online longer that you've been drawing breath, and I'm still getting along just fine with people all over the world. Whether friends, business associates, transportation facilities, or what-have-you, no one I need/want to deal with requires me to have a social media account. And yet they all still respect me for the person I am, not some shabby straw-man with a keyboard and a screen. (OK, OK, businesses only respect me for the money I spend with them, I'm sorrry.)
Well, it would be unfortunate that I have to watch my fellow man suffer the consequences of their own stupidity, but that is their prerogative. Still and all, using FB is certainly not the only way to communicate, nor is it required for communication in any sense of the word. See (yet again) my response above.
Nope. The concept is well defined, and you're correct, it does go back almost 200 years - the railroads. But as we're applying it to the internet and social media today, we're comparing it to the most recent example, our regulated electricity, water, sewer and possibly garbage collection utilities. Your idea of "changes over time" doesn't hold water because it's still a matter of government regulation over an otherwise monopolistic realm.
Oops, we're getting personal here. It's not my approval, it's society's approval with which you disagree. I didn't get a choice, but I'm living with society's choices just fine. Should the majority of society choose to elect to regulate the internet for some reason, I'd have to go along with it, regardless of my personal likes or dislikes.
All of those are written into my State's Constitution. In fact, I'm required by that very same piece of paper to attend school until I'm 16 years of age. Education is funded by taxes laid upon society in general, apportioned in some manner between the citizenry and businesses. The other utilities are required to be presented to me, but I'm not required to take them. And if I do want/take them, then I need to meet additional conditions, such as paying for what I use out of my own pocket.
No fun at all, it's required by law. In fact, because I'm subject to these "societal benefits", I happen to know that I'm not required to take advantage of them, but I certainly can choose to do so.
Where the Hell did that come from? I mean, left field bleachers isn't even close to a valid location.
Your last paragraph contains statements of fact for which no logical argument can be presented.
On the post: South Dakota Court Says Government Doesn't Need To Pay For Home Cops Destroyed To Find A Fugitive Who Wasn't There
Re: Re:
I called out SoDak because the summary specifically called out that State, and specifically, its constitution. But yes, I'm sure they're not the only State in the Union to think that it's proper to treat their citizens this way.
On the post: South Dakota Court Says Government Doesn't Need To Pay For Home Cops Destroyed To Find A Fugitive Who Wasn't There
If devaluing a private property during an attempt to benefit the public by removing a potential menace to the community doesn't fall under the rubric of 'eminent domain', then I don't know what does. It's a taking, and calling it anything else is pure boolshit, make no mistake. Glad I don't live in SoDak.
On the post: Why Is Wired So Focused On Misrepresenting Section 230?
Re: Re:
Might take a tad longer than you were thinking, so better bring along your Towel!
On the post: Why Is Wired So Focused On Misrepresenting Section 230?
Re:
Because they're on the losing side in a war of attrition. They need for the internet to go away so they can regain their "king of the mountain" position that they had before electricity was discovered by none other than Tim Berners-Lee.
(Yes, that was a bit of sarcasm.)
On the post: Why Is Wired So Focused On Misrepresenting Section 230?
Re: Re:
To be fair and correct, Ziff-Davis has nothing to do with WIRED, which is owned by Conde Nast. ZD started in 1927, and has annual revenues of half a billion bucks. CN started in 1909, and has annual revenues of 1 & 1/2 billion dollars. ZD employee count is about 1,000, CD runs to 6,000.
ZD owns PCMag.com (which sprang from the print edition called PC Magazine), and that print edition was born in 1982. Wired as a magazine didn't start until 1993.
More fun facts can be found at an internet near you! ;)
On the post: Estate Of 'Tintin' Comic Creator Loses On Fair Use Grounds To Artist Putting Tintin Alongside Women
Re:
No, you're excused from this exercise. However, if you wish to earn 5 extra credit points.....
On the post: Texas Attorney General Unblocks Twitter Users Who Sued Him; Still Blocking Others
Re:
Forgot one - you can always take out an ad in the local paper, or even radio, TV, magazines, and of course, internet sites. Our intrepid politician can avoid only so much material from so many sources, but if the job is planned correctly, he'll eventually get the message that you wanted to impart in the first place.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Families Of Car Crash Victims Can Continue To Sue Snapchat Over Its 'Speed Filter'
Re:
TAC,
I loved it! Lawyers are gonna be up in arms over parts of it, but I thought you hit the nail on the head.
Ain't that the truth. Evasion of personal responsibility is not only alive and well, it's publicly endorsed every day by certain immoral, unethical and downright stupid politicians. Some of whom are still in power, and some who are recently out of power.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Families Of Car Crash Victims Can Continue To Sue Snapchat Over Its 'Speed Filter'
Re:
This!
The State has only one position, held since the beginning of vehicular movement - public safety. From that, we see it reduced to one simple statement - you are responsible for your actions, period. No matter what outside influence might occur, you are responsible. A mitigating circumstance might be a mechanical failure, or an act of nature, things that no reasonable person could expect a human to deal with in the desired fashion. But if that kind of thing doesn't obtain, then the onus is on the driver to act responsibly, pure and simple.
If a real live person had been in the passenger seat and offered the kilobuck to exceed the speed limit, said passenger is only an instigating factor, not the root primary cause of the action. Well, not unless he had physical control of the driver's muscles, then a case could be made that the passenger is indeed to blame. Short of that....
Now, that's the State's position, which is an action in the name of The People. We now turn to a private action. Herein, we see the plaintiff (the parents) attempting to bypass the State's mandate to drive responsibly. The premise is that the parents would not have suffered a loss if Snap had not made a product that they deem to be unsafe (and with which the 9th Circuit agrees). This speaks directly to them feeling that their son was entitled by Snap to drive irresponsibly, for any reason at all, let alone for an alleged reward. But that goes directly against the State's mandate. The word used in the suit was "Induced", but the effective word is "entitled" - the State will see it no other way. And from that, the case will fail. Nobody has the right to claim immunity from the responsibility laid upon them by the State just because someone (passenger, software, what-have-you) said "let's see how fast it can go". Nobody. Period.
Case dismissed.
On the post: Texas Attorney General Unblocks Twitter Users Who Sued Him; Still Blocking Others
I was thinking that after all these comments, I'd be the first to point this out, but Darkness Of Course has beat me to it.
Now you all know that I'm an asshole-hater of the first stripe, make no mistake. Number Two on my shit-list are those people who want their cake and be able to eat it too. I can't get away with that, so I don't like it when others try it. Hence I get a "two-fer" here, in the following diatribe.
So how is it that we here on TD, myself included, repeat ad nauseum that 1A does not give a person the right to force other people to listen to him/her... and yet the courts, who are 1/3 of the government and thus subject to 1A's restrictions, can force public officials to listen to persons with whom they don't want to associate???? Do recall that nowhere in the Constitution, nor in any Amendment, does it differentiate that a public servant becomes subject to a different standard vis-a-vis association with others (peaceful assembly, the language in 1A) - said personage still has full 1A rights, period. For the court(s) to declare otherwise is itself repugnant to the Constitution.
But moreover..... as we've said, all of us, #45 was never "kicked off the internet", because he always had alternative means to accomplish his goals (to be heard, errr, I mean to spout drivel (strike-through markdown needed!!)). Same here - if a citizen wants to communicate with Paxton, then he can either write a letter, use the telephone, send a telegram, hire a courier, or even buttonhole him at the lunch counter. Any and all of these methods (all of which were common before the rise of the internet) is viable. And when these seem fruitless, well then, you've got my personal favorite - simply attend one of his campaign speeches, and disrupt it - that'll get some attention.
And of course there's the final arbiter - the ballot box. You can be pretty certain that in most places in this country, if a public servant wants to continue in his/her position, they are going to listen to at least some of the constituency - if they cut off everyone (particularly after an outbreak of bad publicity), then they're going to find out why that's not a good idea the next time the ballot box is open for business. Hell, if you're tired of his crap now and can't wait, start a recall petition - that will also get some unwanted attention, won't it though.
On the post: Australian Crime Commission: Only Criminals Use Encrypted Communications
It won't happen, as designed so far...
While many readers (above) have given good reasons for this being a compete clusterfsck, the one and only reason it won't work is commerce. When one big business corporation gets accused of criminal operations, they tend to unleash some pretty powerful legal talent. When nearly all of the big businesses in the country are so accused (either by proxy or directly), you can bet that the government will be tied up in court for so long that their children will still be fighting for this "everyone's a criminal unless we say so" cause.
Trade secrets, contract negotiations, employment discussions, business practices, and myriad other commercial activities that take place over the internet are all encrypted, about as highly so as practicable (meaning, without creating so much hindrance as to make it too big of a PITA to use.) If you tell big business that they can't keep those things secret, then the stinky stuff will most certainly hit the rotating ventilation device at a record-breaking speed. If I were a big business in Oz right now, I'd be letting it known, publicly, that I intend to ignore such a hostile, not-for-public-benefit law, no matter how it's couched in pretty language. Then I'd tell the ruling party and it's stooges to "see me in court".
I have a sneaking suspicion that both the US and the UK are behind this, or at least highly on-board with it. I can see where, if Australia makes this a law that withstands court challenges, then every country on the planet that espouses themselves to be "free" will be jumping to do the same thing, "because Australia is doing it, so we can too!!"
Parting shot: I'm quite doubtful that anyone could point out to me a single member of either this Commission, or the entire Aussie Parliament, that knows the difference between a code and a cypher. 'Nuff said.
On the post: Despite Empty FCC Promises, Broadband Prices Jumped 19% During Trump Era
Re:
Two words: Qualified Immunity.
You can thank the USSC for that one. You can communicate with your Congresscritter to let them know that you want them to pass the bill that will end this kind of crap. Don't know if it will do any good, but it's a guarantee that if you don't, the bill's chances of success is that much lower, eh?
On the post: Minister Behind Canada's Social Media Bill Now Says It Will Regulate User Generated Content
Re: 'We're not doing X, we just want the power to do X for reaso
That's actually a good idea, it gets my squeal of approval! :)
On the post: Minister Behind Canada's Social Media Bill Now Says It Will Regulate User Generated Content
Re:
Because:
This certainly passes the Smell Test. That rule about "5% of all content must originate in Canada" comes from the exact same people who populate France and it's lonely outpost, Quebec. IOW, (and this is an exact quote): "They're stealing our culture by English-izing our beautiful French language". You can guess how I feel about that one.
It shouldn't take too long for a search engine to cough up the number of Canadian-born actors who made it big in Hollywood, first or otherwise.
I can only hope that every YT channel operator, Canadian or otherwise, starts including episodes of The Hosers, that'd tickle me pink. Oh, and throw in some Red Green while they're at it.
But the sad fact is, where "broadcasting" for revenue or otherwise means that the viewer is locked in to what the originator is putting out, a YT viewer can pick and choose what he/she wants to see - nothing the Canadian Government can do will be able to force a viewer (from anywhere!) to pick and view any particular content, regardless of where it originated. Perhaps... unless they start operating some kind of lottery, where the winning numbers are shown within some particular video, one that gets taken down once a winner comes forth. That just might justify picking and choosing to view a Canadian-born vid.... but it's a stretch, I admit.
On the post: Trump DOJ Investigated Internal Leaks By Obtaining Journalists' Phone Records
Re: Re:
Wouldn't that be "The Donald Strikes Back"?
Next >>