I don't know for sure which is better: that Facebook would censor speech or that they wouldn't. Both have different potential for trouble if not done properly.
Only thing I know for sure is that applying inconsistent and arbitrary conditions is the worst case scenario.
Deciding that hate speech is not welcome on the site is fine. It's a private business, it's your choice. But deciding that it's not welcome unless brought by a crazy guy who's rich and a presidential candidate clearly spells, once again, that equality is but a word devoid of meaning in reality.
Just to be clear, one of the depicted is an African-American female news anchor, while the other one is a pale-furred hamster with what appears to be a melted turd on its head.
That's not clear enough. Which is on the left, which is on the right?
I'm so confused. /s
Joke aside, how was this not laughed out of court the second it hit the judge's desk? This kind of case is why the US justice system is the subject of so many jokes.
What you're missing is that those videos are not so much about cops shooting black people. It's more about cops abusing force. Killing defenceless people isn't an issue to you?
> 'Wall St' has the money to get lawyers to force the police to go by the book. Nice oh you to point one if the problems: If you have no money, police didn't bother "going by the book", they simply apply the oldest of rules "might makes right".
Nobody said anything about crime. The article mentioned guns, and a large part of deaths and injuries by gun are accidents. I would think that is within their mandate.
Given the number of death-by-cop stories, they're very good at shooting what they're aiming at. In their case, gun control is not so much a problem as self-control.
I'm not sure about UK, but several countries in Europe have a "moral right" component to their "author's rights" that allow them to forbid a use that they disagree with on moral grounds.
This is not too be used for licensing, which is a separate right, but this case would be a perfect textbook example of this right.
So maybe, just maybe, this guy has misconception about his rights in US courts.
Fake lawsuits featuring fake plaintiffs filed against fake defendants and hustled past judges to secure court orders demanding delisting by search engines: that's the new face of reputation management, apparently.
Actually, it seems the lawsuits are real.
Bogus, but not fake.
That's what gives them the power to compel real ISPs over real comments after all.
I agree with the financial part.
You ruin someone's life, you have to be accountable for it.
You can't just walk away with a "sorry dude" (that they probably not even said, let alone felt).
I understand that people make mistakes, but this scale of things is not a "oops" type of mistake.
They could have arrested him peacefully, they decided to go full berserk on him. I could have agreed to a degree of caution and force (they were supposed to deal with a dangerous robber and police attacker), but - as demonstrated in numerous news before - they displayed the self-control of a 5-year old. This definitely calls for reparation.
Now, the "eye for an eye" part is wrong. The part where "you act like a monster, you get treated as a monster" is exactly what our society is supposed not to be.
(Then again, that's fine if you're just joking about it.)
And in fact current US law prohibits US-based providers from responding to those demands—requiring that the foreign governments instead employ the MLA process and ultimately obtain a US warrant based on the US standard of probable cause.
A journalist is interviewing a man who fled Eastern Europe. - so, how was life in the east? - ah, I can't complain about it. - oh? What about work? - I can't complain about it either. - what about your leaders? - I definitely can't complain about them. - if you have no complaint, why did you even come to the west? - because here, I can complain!
Seems like the end of the joke is not true anymore.
Step 1: attack the whole world. Step 2: wait for response. Step 3: get outraged at being attacked "without provocation" Step 4: use this as justification for attacking the whole world for the next 10 to 20 years.
You wouldn't believe it! My cousin earned 100k$ a year working from home doing nothing but calling the DEA a couple times a day, reporting drug dealers that don't even exist. If you want to learn more, go to http://www.dea.gov .
To which you prefer gratuitous accusations. Nice job here. /s
Seriously, comments are here - amongst other things - for constructive criticism. And TD has already proved that it takes it quite well.
Now, if you don't want to prove your own accusations, don't be surprised if you don't get much sympathy. Saying things like "you're wrong and I don't need to prove it" is one of the worst reply you can make.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
I don't know for sure which is better: that Facebook would censor speech or that they wouldn't. Both have different potential for trouble if not done properly. Only thing I know for sure is that applying inconsistent and arbitrary conditions is the worst case scenario. Deciding that hate speech is not welcome on the site is fine. It's a private business, it's your choice. But deciding that it's not welcome unless brought by a crazy guy who's rich and a presidential candidate clearly spells, once again, that equality is but a word devoid of meaning in reality.
On the post: Harris Faulkner Suit Against Hasbro Over A Toy Hamster Ends In Settlement, Hasbro To Discontinue The Toy
That's not clear enough. Which is on the left, which is on the right? I'm so confused. /s
Joke aside, how was this not laughed out of court the second it hit the judge's desk? This kind of case is why the US justice system is the subject of so many jokes.
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
Re: pick and choose
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
Re: Re: Re: pick and choose
Nice oh you to point one if the problems:
If you have no money, police didn't bother "going by the book", they simply apply the oldest of rules "might makes right".
On the post: This Is Huge: New Project Releases All Current (Non-Confidential) Congressional Research Service Reports
Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
On the post: This Is Huge: New Project Releases All Current (Non-Confidential) Congressional Research Service Reports
Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll Be Missed
On the post: Skittles Photographer Actually Sues Trump Campaign Over Infringement
This is not too be used for licensing, which is a separate right, but this case would be a perfect textbook example of this right.
So maybe, just maybe, this guy has misconception about his rights in US courts.
On the post: CNN Tells Viewers It's Illegal For Them To Read Wikileaks Document Dumps. CNN Is Wrong
Re: Re: Reading is illegal?
On the post: Reputation Management Company Linked To Bogus Libel Lawsuits Now Hyping Its Anti-Cyberbullying Skills
Re:
(made a mistake with the blockquote it seems)
On the post: Reputation Management Company Linked To Bogus Libel Lawsuits Now Hyping Its Anti-Cyberbullying Skills
Fake lawsuits featuring fake plaintiffs filed against fake defendants and hustled past judges to secure court orders demanding delisting by search engines: that's the new face of reputation management, apparently. Actually, it seems the lawsuits are real. Bogus, but not fake. That's what gives them the power to compel real ISPs over real comments after all.
On the post: FBI Facial Recognition Expert Helps Denver PD Arrest Wrong Man Twice For The Same Crime
Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
I agree with the financial part. You ruin someone's life, you have to be accountable for it. You can't just walk away with a "sorry dude" (that they probably not even said, let alone felt). I understand that people make mistakes, but this scale of things is not a "oops" type of mistake. They could have arrested him peacefully, they decided to go full berserk on him. I could have agreed to a degree of caution and force (they were supposed to deal with a dangerous robber and police attacker), but - as demonstrated in numerous news before - they displayed the self-control of a 5-year old. This definitely calls for reparation.
Now, the "eye for an eye" part is wrong. The part where "you act like a monster, you get treated as a monster" is exactly what our society is supposed not to be. (Then again, that's fine if you're just joking about it.)
On the post: Government Seeks Do-Over On Win For Microsoft And Its Overseas Data
Classic case of "do as I say, not as I do"?
On the post: Charles Harder Sends Ridiculous Threat Letter To People On Behalf Of Melania Trump
Re: Dont bother me
On the post: EFF's Challenge Of NSL Gag Orders Reaches The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals
A journalist is interviewing a man who fled Eastern Europe.
- so, how was life in the east?
- ah, I can't complain about it.
- oh? What about work?
- I can't complain about it either.
- what about your leaders?
- I definitely can't complain about them.
- if you have no complaint, why did you even come to the west?
- because here, I can complain!
Seems like the end of the joke is not true anymore.
On the post: No Matter Who's Elected, Surveillance Powers And Programs Unlikely To Be Scaled Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And THAT is what YOU are voting for!!!
Now, where is the genie to fulfill those wishes?
On the post: Obama Promises 'Proportional' Response To Russian Hacking, Ignores That We Started The Fight
Step 2: wait for response.
Step 3: get outraged at being attacked "without provocation"
Step 4: use this as justification for attacking the whole world for the next 10 to 20 years.
Strange how this scheme seems familiar.
On the post: The State Department Has Taken Over Three Years On A FOIA Request About How Long It Takes To Process FOIA Requests
Question their procedures, that's worse.
You're already considered trouble when you file a FOIA request.
Go meta and you're bound to bureaucracy hell.
On the post: NBC Delayed Story About Trump's Access Hollywood Recording Over Fear That He Might Sue
Re: the timing is too convenient
On the post: Report: DEA Blowing Money On Liars, Thieves, And Amtrak Employees
You wouldn't believe it!
My cousin earned 100k$ a year working from home doing nothing but calling the DEA a couple times a day, reporting drug dealers that don't even exist.
If you want to learn more, go to http://www.dea.gov .
On the post: Trump Adds To His Anti-First Amendment Legacy In Threatening To Sue Clinton For Campaign Ads
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice job here. /s
Seriously, comments are here - amongst other things - for constructive criticism. And TD has already proved that it takes it quite well.
Now, if you don't want to prove your own accusations, don't be surprised if you don't get much sympathy. Saying things like "you're wrong and I don't need to prove it" is one of the worst reply you can make.
Next >>