So in your simplistic worldview blame can only be attributed to one party? Plenty of blame to go around here, and a big chunk of it goes to the NSA for the reasons clearly explained in the article.
I don't understand the ongoing confusion really. The term 'fake news' first appeared to accurately describe stories being posted that were completely fabricated with little to no basis in truth. Not partisan opinion pieces but events that simply didn't occur. Low-intellect morons are now using it to disparage stories they don't agree with or want to discredit for their own purposes, but they are wrong and the definition hasn't changed. Words still mean things. I hope...
Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".
Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting"...
Nobody said this was "reporting", it's an opinion blog.
Insults are perfectly legal.
If it's true (and you know it is) it's not defamation.
Three mistakes in only six words. Amazing.
If you're so sure of your position... just go to trial!
It's almost like you're deliberately trying to demonstrate your complete ignorance of the legal trial system. Nobody 'just goes to trail' if there's a chance of dismissal. Clown.
"I am never surprised at how fast people give up their freedoms."
Can you explain how rules that do nothing other than prevent companies from acting in anti-consumers ways is "people giving up their freedom".
"Net Neutrality is in reality GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the net and the content."
How does this braindead, anti-reality claim still get made? NN laws provide exactly zero control of either the internet or the content on it. They specifically restrict ISP behavior that would affect content delivery, but still not the actual net.
You sound just like an industry sockpuppet. I hope you are getting paid to parrot this nonsense because if you're not it means you're just profoundly ignorant.
"If a broadcast news company were to let a rape occur live the gubernment would be there with their pen and paper in minutes handing out fines... but because it's a website and the company doesn't consider itself a media company they should get a pass? Not in my book!"
Your hypothetical is shot down by an example mentioned in this very article, the 1974 on-air suicide of news anchor Christine Chubbuck on live TV. Was the government "there with their pen and paper in minutes handing out fines"? No of course not, because nobody thought the station should be held responsible for something they could not practically prevent.
You should stop reading your book and find some new ones.
"The more regulated the internet becomes, the more power that goes to the lobbyists and special interest."
Your statement is complete nonsense, and this very example proves it. Here we have pro-consumer regulations being killed specifically in response to lobbyists and special interests. Somehow regulations designed to protect consumers from egregious corporate behavior are bad in your eyes. I'd love to hear to explain that.
Not to mention that these regulations did not regulate the internet, they regulated companies. This very significant difference has been pointed out countless times but apparently some still can't figure it out.
*"Yes, there are those that want most guns banned."*
Of course there are, there are always people who want things banned outright. But that's not what I said.
*"Hillary stated that automatic weapons (which are actually semi automatic) should be banned. That takes out most modern handguns, shotguns and rifles."*
Stating blatant falsehoods is a really crappy way to attempt to make an argument.
"...the left has had the focus of eliminating guns in America..."
Why does this BS claim get repeated over and over? There has been absolutely no significant, credible movement to "ban guns" ever. The issue has only ever been gun control to reduce the ridiculously high gun death rates in the US.
"This creates an atmosphere of fear and distrust where Police see every gun as nothing but a threat to be handled with escalating anxiety and deadly force."
So what about the many, many cases of police shootings where they were the only ones armed? These seem to greatly outnumber cases where police were genuinely in danger of being shot at. It seems police aren't afraid of guns, they're just afraid. That doesn't instill much confidence that they're picking the right people and training them properly.
"More white people are killed by police than blacks, but guess where the race card goes?"
Wow, that sounds willfully ignorant. More black people are killed by police per capita than whites by far. Blacks are grossly over-represented in police shooting statistics, which is the whole point of the BLM movement.
"...the BLM movement is doing a terrible job and polarizing the issue in the worst possible way by making it clear that the only lives that matter are black lives and everyone else can just die for all they care."
That's an absolutely gross misrepresentation with zero evidence to back it up, and I can only assume it comes from deep-seated racism that you just won't admit to.
Re: Re: Re: Re: War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Violation of Privacy are Protecting the Consumer
"FCC made up these rules unilaterally out of thin air."
What a meaningless complaint. Companies engage in anti-consumer behavior that everyone hates, FCC introduces rules to prevent that behavior. That's exactly what government regulations are supposed to do. The only people who would complain about this are those financially benefiting from abusing consumers, plus of course their paid shills and beholden politicians.
"The proper way is to introduce legislation and put it to a vote by your elected representatives."
Yes we know that's how'd you'd prefer it's done, because you know those reps have been sufficiently bought off to prevent anything happening. Could you be any more obvious?
"Just because you all keep saying MUSLIM ban doesn't make it so."
It's a Muslim ban because that's exactly what Trump said he was going to do and exactly what he's tried to do. I'm sure it was one of the reasons you voted for him, so you can't get all defensive about an accurate description now. You wanted it, so own it.
"Their's that they've themselves screwed up and turn it into the hell holes that they are. Why bring their crap here?"
Could you be any more ignorant about these people? They are fleeing that crap, why the hell would you think they want to bring it with them?
The only people who have ever claimed that BLM means black lives matter more than others are racist white assholes who are offended that anyone dare threaten their perceived superiority over non-whites.
If you're not going to acknowledge Techdirt's *long* history of criticizing both government and corporate surveillance, or even worse, claim it didn't happen, then you can just go piss off. We're all for having honest discussions on the topic, but your comment is predicated on a blatant falsehood. Ignorance or a lie? You tell us...
On the post: Leaked NSA Hacking Tool On Global Ransomware Rampage
Re:
On the post: Latest Attack On A Free Press: Reporter Arrested For Asking Questions To Trump Administration Officials
Re: Re: Re:
I don't understand the ongoing confusion really. The term 'fake news' first appeared to accurately describe stories being posted that were completely fabricated with little to no basis in truth. Not partisan opinion pieces but events that simply didn't occur. Low-intellect morons are now using it to disparage stories they don't agree with or want to discredit for their own purposes, but they are wrong and the definition hasn't changed. Words still mean things. I hope...
On the post: First Hearing In The Lawsuit Against Us, Along With Even More Filings
Re: Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting", but it's just about the ONLY "kind of work [you've] done for almost twenty years".
Insulting and defaming is NOT "reporting"...
Three mistakes in only six words. Amazing.
If you're so sure of your position... just go to trial!
It's almost like you're deliberately trying to demonstrate your complete ignorance of the legal trial system. Nobody 'just goes to trail' if there's a chance of dismissal. Clown.
On the post: Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Being Wrong: Pushes Yet Another Net Neutrality Killing Bill
Re: net neutrality
"I am never surprised at how fast people give up their freedoms."
Can you explain how rules that do nothing other than prevent companies from acting in anti-consumers ways is "people giving up their freedom".
"Net Neutrality is in reality GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the net and the content."
How does this braindead, anti-reality claim still get made? NN laws provide exactly zero control of either the internet or the content on it. They specifically restrict ISP behavior that would affect content delivery, but still not the actual net.
You sound just like an industry sockpuppet. I hope you are getting paid to parrot this nonsense because if you're not it means you're just profoundly ignorant.
On the post: NYPD Finally Comes Up With A Body Camera Policy, And It's Terrible
Don't they keep telling us...
On the post: Court: No Immunity For Federal Agent Who Made Elderly Woman Stand In Urine-Soaked Pants For Two Hours While He Questioned Her
Re: Re: A few things needs to change...
On the post: Moral Panics: Don't Blame Facebook Because Some Guy Posted His Murder Video There
Re: Crimes broadcast, propaganda, alt news
"If a broadcast news company were to let a rape occur live the gubernment would be there with their pen and paper in minutes handing out fines... but because it's a website and the company doesn't consider itself a media company they should get a pass? Not in my book!"
Your hypothetical is shot down by an example mentioned in this very article, the 1974 on-air suicide of news anchor Christine Chubbuck on live TV. Was the government "there with their pen and paper in minutes handing out fines"? No of course not, because nobody thought the station should be held responsible for something they could not practically prevent.
You should stop reading your book and find some new ones.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Right To Bear Arms Isn't A Right If Cops Are Banging On Your Door In The Middle Of The Night
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Trump's Internet Brigades Shocked To Realize The Government Just Sold Them Out On Privacy
Re: The idiot Trump Supporter
"The more regulated the internet becomes, the more power that goes to the lobbyists and special interest."
Your statement is complete nonsense, and this very example proves it. Here we have pro-consumer regulations being killed specifically in response to lobbyists and special interests. Somehow regulations designed to protect consumers from egregious corporate behavior are bad in your eyes. I'd love to hear to explain that.
Not to mention that these regulations did not regulate the internet, they regulated companies. This very significant difference has been pointed out countless times but apparently some still can't figure it out.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Right To Bear Arms Isn't A Right If Cops Are Banging On Your Door In The Middle Of The Night
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Says Right To Bear Arms Isn't A Right If Cops Are Banging On Your Door In The Middle Of The Night
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course there are, there are always people who want things banned outright. But that's not what I said.
*"Hillary stated that automatic weapons (which are actually semi automatic) should be banned. That takes out most modern handguns, shotguns and rifles."*
Stating blatant falsehoods is a really crappy way to attempt to make an argument.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Right To Bear Arms Isn't A Right If Cops Are Banging On Your Door In The Middle Of The Night
Re: Re: Re:
"...the left has had the focus of eliminating guns in America..."
Why does this BS claim get repeated over and over? There has been absolutely no significant, credible movement to "ban guns" ever. The issue has only ever been gun control to reduce the ridiculously high gun death rates in the US.
"This creates an atmosphere of fear and distrust where Police see every gun as nothing but a threat to be handled with escalating anxiety and deadly force."
So what about the many, many cases of police shootings where they were the only ones armed? These seem to greatly outnumber cases where police were genuinely in danger of being shot at. It seems police aren't afraid of guns, they're just afraid. That doesn't instill much confidence that they're picking the right people and training them properly.
"More white people are killed by police than blacks, but guess where the race card goes?"
Wow, that sounds willfully ignorant. More black people are killed by police per capita than whites by far. Blacks are grossly over-represented in police shooting statistics, which is the whole point of the BLM movement.
"...the BLM movement is doing a terrible job and polarizing the issue in the worst possible way by making it clear that the only lives that matter are black lives and everyone else can just die for all they care."
That's an absolutely gross misrepresentation with zero evidence to back it up, and I can only assume it comes from deep-seated racism that you just won't admit to.
On the post: Lawsuit: Police Destroyed Farm House To Capture Homeless Man Armed With An Ice Cream Bar
Re: Re: Bad or worse
On the post: Congress Just Voted To Kill Consumer Broadband Privacy Protections
Re: Re: Re: Re: War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Violation of Privacy are Protecting the Consumer
"FCC made up these rules unilaterally out of thin air."
What a meaningless complaint. Companies engage in anti-consumer behavior that everyone hates, FCC introduces rules to prevent that behavior. That's exactly what government regulations are supposed to do. The only people who would complain about this are those financially benefiting from abusing consumers, plus of course their paid shills and beholden politicians.
"The proper way is to introduce legislation and put it to a vote by your elected representatives."
Yes we know that's how'd you'd prefer it's done, because you know those reps have been sufficiently bought off to prevent anything happening. Could you be any more obvious?
On the post: Tech Companies File Amicus Brief, Still Opposed To New Trump Immigration Order
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I have worked on places thst shut diwn multiple times per day because the muslim workforce need to stop to pray."
No you haven't.
On the post: Tech Companies File Amicus Brief, Still Opposed To New Trump Immigration Order
Re: Re: Re:
"Just because you all keep saying MUSLIM ban doesn't make it so."
It's a Muslim ban because that's exactly what Trump said he was going to do and exactly what he's tried to do. I'm sure it was one of the reasons you voted for him, so you can't get all defensive about an accurate description now. You wanted it, so own it.
"Their's that they've themselves screwed up and turn it into the hell holes that they are. Why bring their crap here?"
Could you be any more ignorant about these people? They are fleeing that crap, why the hell would you think they want to bring it with them?
On the post: 'Blue Lives Matter' Laws Continue To Be Introduced Around The Nation
Re:
"...why do black lives matter more than others?"
The only people who have ever claimed that BLM means black lives matter more than others are racist white assholes who are offended that anyone dare threaten their perceived superiority over non-whites.
On the post: Trump Administration Wants A Clean Reauthorization For NSA Surveillance
Re: Hypocrisy stands in the way of solutions
If you're not going to acknowledge Techdirt's *long* history of criticizing both government and corporate surveillance, or even worse, claim it didn't happen, then you can just go piss off. We're all for having honest discussions on the topic, but your comment is predicated on a blatant falsehood. Ignorance or a lie? You tell us...
On the post: Trump Administration Wants A Clean Reauthorization For NSA Surveillance
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Silicon Valley Needs To Get Its Act Together On Sexual Harassment & Discrimination
Re: It's not just women, it's anyone of lower status; for example, Kalanick of Uber caught on video abusing an Uber driver.
Expect you weren't blocked, and now you have the same comment posted twice because you're too special just to wait a bit.
Next >>