Akshully.... The first persons deemed to be snowflakes were also called Social Justice Warriors, a term meant to mock them, thus perpetuating an entertaining cycle of repeated meltdowns. And thus it follows that since SJWs are all from the left of the dividing line, not the right, your assertion isn't quite on target, even in today's turmoil of "who can whine the loudest".
But you are correct in that a generic meaning of 'snowflake' wouldn't care about politics, it's all about not being able to converse with others, in public, without running home to Mommy, wailing that "the mean man stole my candy". However, do keep in mind that snowflakes are very much like a Slinky - pretty much useless, but still fun to push down the stairs.
The media (and social media for that matter) is great at getting the initial headlines out there and breaking the stories.
Welcome to the world of the sound-bite, social media edition. Where the motto is: if you want more details, then go somewhere else. But wait, don't go yet, what if we first showed this 6-piece set of Ginzu knives?
But, but, but.... this violates the very first rule of dealing with trolls:
1) Don't Feed The Trolls! They grow, and even multiply, when you do so.
The button to the far right for voting should be renamed to "Asshat". By definition, a troll is both abusive and spamming (gumming up the flow of the discussion). In my particular dictionary, that's a synonym for 'Asshat'.
Re: Re: Re: An argument built on imaginary slights
It's never a good business practice to "bear losses" when you have lawyers chompin' at the bit to get out there and prove their worth. But more to the point, advertisers won't be appeased by statements such as "we're waiting for the rest of the market to go under, then we'll unleash the lawyers on the government". That looks like you're not willing to lead the counter-attack to the assault on your livelihood - bad juju, that.
What's going to be rich is when, even before the court cases on the constitutionality of any law requiring the hosting of all content, is the court cases of those companies who are forced to close all comments for fear of being penalized by the government. At that point, no advertiser will foot the bill for some stale static pages, and income to those companies will essentially evaporate. That''s an even bigger "interference with business model" that will get the ball rolling much more quickly, I'm pretty sure.
Re: The freakin ISS is going to be seeing that projection...
do some more research
Republican: Research is for nerds, you know, the little people.
Also Republican: I'm too important to listen to little people who do that kind of thing. You just listen to me, and obey everything I say, or I'll get you. Just watch, you'll see.
^^^ Not just "wrote", as in the past tense, but everything he posts live - it's all beyond the pale when viewed through the lens of reality. I personally wonder at his every post, that he's not been hospitalized for gross manifestations of clinical inability to successfully relate to the real world.
I don't want to argue so early in the morning, but I can say with impunity that I'm able to use the Enter key as I wish when in a Text Box, and it will create a new line, every time. To expect the Enter key to act as a "Submit" switch is an absolute no-no when using a text entry form (a Text Box). That's why designers put a "Submit" button just outside of the Text Box itself.
What likely happens, and I'm no stranger to this phenomenon, is that a laptop's touchpad is always looking for ways to screw the keyboardist by doing something that wasn't desired. If the hand is anywhere near the overly sensitive capacitance device (the touchpad), then depending on where the cursor was sitting, it's very conceivable that the Submit action was triggered, and the rest of the story is told in tears, such as Ceyarracks had to do. I finally just reached in and physically disconnected the bleepin' thing, and hooked up an external mouse. Renders the laptop's mobility a few index points lower, but I'm no longer frustrated at things happening when I don't want or expect them to happen.
The problem comes to a head from a slightly circuitous route. While Proctorio is not itself a government actor, nor does being a contractor to a public school make them a government actor, the fact remains that they abused the DMCA process via the courts. Since the courts are indeed part of the overall government structure, we now have nexus to 1A, and that puts Proctorio on the hot seat.
Using "free speech" to object to another person's free speech is fine. But
... we still have the freedom to ignore them as well.
is hard to accomplish when it makes the news, whether for a criminal or a civil action.
Creating a "novel" use of the law, particularly one that was not intended by the legislators, always brings scrutiny of the undesired sort. Proctorio will go down in flames on this one.
Re: Re: "A. Stephen Stone" show ONE not on topic and civil
You are simply labeling opinion you don't want to read as "spam", therefore okay to censor.
Your problem is that you wanted to be treated as if you were an adult, but you act (which speaks louder than words) as if you were a two-year-old. We don't particularly appreciate people who make unfounded accusations as if they were prizes found in Cracker-Jack boxes. For the great majority of us, we can easily tolerate a spectrum of opinions, but it's much easier to digest when it's not written in such an accusatory tone of language. Capish?
proposal: treat the entire general population as "journalists"
I'd like this, except that by and large, journalists don't go around skulking at the fringes of a crowd, then tossing fire-bombs and other destructive devices at buildings, people, etc. And we all know that where you find law-abiding citizens, you'll also find asshelmets galore, don't we.
But yes, everyone and his brother can forge a credential that will pass a quick muster. The only real solution is for "on-the-scene" journalists to submit to a photo database for cops to use while demonstrations are in progress. And even that can be finessed, though doing so will take a little more time and skill.
OK, justme, here we go. Buckle up and keep your dramamine handy....
moderation is nothing less than censorship.
Censorship is defined as one party attempting to interfere with another party's attempt to speak (promote an idea) to yet another party. Don't make the mistake of confusing that with the word 'moderation', there's a world of difference. Since the arch-conservatives have decided to label people with brains as "woke", I'll tender that we "woke" folk should start calling them "sleepers", as they certainly don't want to wake up and smell the coffee - that might make them appear to be intelligent, and they can't have that, can they? OTOH, doing such would mean that I've stooped down to their level of ignomy, and I really don't want to sling mud with them, they'd pummel me with greater experience. Eh, best to not go down that road. Never mind.
if you dislike someone's opinion then scroll on by and ignore it.
Absolutely the best way to conduct life. However, if one keeps their head buried in the sand, one will definitely get their ass kicked by those who don't hide their heads in the sand..... or rather, by those who keep sticking their heads where the sun will never shine. To wit, it's OK to express an opinion, even an unpopular one, but it's NOT OK to call for violent action against someone (or more than one) just because they don't like your opinion - that's verboten, plain and simple. Doing so steps over the line of mere "speech" and treads into the realm of calling for the commission of harm upon another person. I'd lay odds that you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of such a call to action/violence, eh?
social media platforms should not be censored (moderated), but should be a free flow of ideas and opinions.
See my statement above about the difference between free-flowing ideas/opinions and calls for taking the law into one's own hands. I hope it hasn't escaped your notice that most of the whoop-de-doo over that last several months/years has been about calls to violence, either implicit or explicit. Not a good look for "free flowing ideas and opinions". In my opinion, of course.
people don't seem to understand that free speech is always, by definition speech that you may not like.
You are certainly correct on this one. I do wonder, however, how it is that you can be so haphazard in swinging from one side of the bar to the other, in just a few sentences. But watch this, Bunky - it's not about free speech at all. That's yet another failed attempt at misdirection foisted upon you (and other believers). Pay attention, we're coming to the good part:
You will recall (do I need to put that in caps for you?) that 1A works as a limit on government at all levels, period. It says nothing about what private citizens (and by extension from the Supreme Court, corporations) can do to each other, at least in terms of speech, and my favorite part - association with others.
Let me go over that last bit with you, in somewhat more detail. 1A also says that the government cannot prohibit members of the public from "peaceful assembly" (paraphrased), and that's the true heart of the matter here. No matter how much, nor how loud, conservatives scream and holler that they're being "shut down", they aren't - there are always, always other outlets for those crybabies to go tattle on "the mean people over there". Contrast that with the government - if they were to "shut you up", you'd be totally unable to go anywhere in order to complain, isn't that right?
What's at play here is the fact that Facebook, et al. are private citizens who choose not to associate ("peacefully assemble") with others that don't think alike, at least to some degree. Fb in particular is OK with outrageous misfits that thumb their noses at adults, but they do take steps to end everyone's misery when said asshelmets step over the line and start espousing their opinions as calls to action to alleviate their private grievances. And again, I'm getting the sense from your statements that you would not want to be in the boots of someone who is being "censored/moderated" because they're acting like a two-year-old....am I correct on that one too?
Just think: these rubes actually ELECTED Hawley as their Respected And Beloved Leader.
Either that, or he simply bought the ballot box. Do recall that #45 himself said that the election would be rigged. Not "might be", but "would", period. I think we're seeing the proof of that, sorry to say.
No, there should be something punishable, and there is indeed.... it's called ignorance when one is being charitable, and willful stupidity when one is calling a spade a spade.
An old saw goes something like "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance". Congress is proving that true every day, but the ones paying for that ignorance is us, the public citizenry.
We've been over this before. It would violate the 1st Amendment and create compelled speech. Why do no politicians seem to understand this?
Perhaps because they're paid to not understand it? According to this article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wall-street-gave-dollar435-million-to-gop-lawmakers-who-vote d-to-overturn-the-presidential-election/ar-BB1fIUFj?li=BBnb7Kz, those congresspersons who voted to overturn the popular and electoral elections were the beneficiaries of the Financial Sector's largesse, to the tune of $43+ million bucks. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy scarfed up more than 10% of that, at $4.8 million over the last two years. And so on and so forth.... (Amazingly enough, the House took the bulk of that money, the Senate didn't fare so well. Go figure.)
I'd say that the Supreme Court should be laughing up their collective sleeve right about now, as that article shows the direct result of their Citizens United decision, back in 2010.
The first problem here is proclaiming that the Republicans have a platform at all. As crade noted, slightly above, that's an oxymoron right there. But I'll go one further - all they have is a loose cohesion of personal agendas, centering around #45's personal agenda for America. Need I remind anyone that this means returning our country to the post-WWII era, or even earlier.
If I were in charge at Wharton Business School, I'd be so embarrassed for having to admit that this joker was given one of our sheepskins that I'd rescind it, post haste.
Mike might've, or might not've, flipped a switch, so to speak. However, my finger is never very far from the magic "call it like it is" button. Guess what....
Think I'll register an account with the username "Scunthorpe Cockburn" and see how far I get.
That right there is priceless! Do keep us informed of your adventures, please.
... wondering when Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and DJT will create verified accounts?
They won't be able to, because AC (immediately above) and others of like mind will beat the "real" ones to the punch. Often and repeatedly, ad finitum. Hell, I'm tempted to sign up as "TheRealJoshHawley'sMentor", but I don't want to step on CJ Robert's toes. He might be even funnier than I could ever be, who knows.
On the post: James O'Keefe Sues Twitter For Defamation... For Shutting Down His Account
Re:
Akshully.... The first persons deemed to be snowflakes were also called Social Justice Warriors, a term meant to mock them, thus perpetuating an entertaining cycle of repeated meltdowns. And thus it follows that since SJWs are all from the left of the dividing line, not the right, your assertion isn't quite on target, even in today's turmoil of "who can whine the loudest".
But you are correct in that a generic meaning of 'snowflake' wouldn't care about politics, it's all about not being able to converse with others, in public, without running home to Mommy, wailing that "the mean man stole my candy". However, do keep in mind that snowflakes are very much like a Slinky - pretty much useless, but still fun to push down the stairs.
On the post: The Other George Floyd Story: How Media Freedom Led To Conviction In His Killer's Trial
Re: Re:
Welcome to the world of the sound-bite, social media edition. Where the motto is: if you want more details, then go somewhere else. But wait, don't go yet, what if we first showed this 6-piece set of Ginzu knives?
On the post: The Other George Floyd Story: How Media Freedom Led To Conviction In His Killer's Trial
Re: Re:
But, but, but.... this violates the very first rule of dealing with trolls:
1) Don't Feed The Trolls! They grow, and even multiply, when you do so.
The button to the far right for voting should be renamed to "Asshat". By definition, a troll is both abusive and spamming (gumming up the flow of the discussion). In my particular dictionary, that's a synonym for 'Asshat'.
On the post: How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
Re: Re: Re: An argument built on imaginary slights
It's never a good business practice to "bear losses" when you have lawyers chompin' at the bit to get out there and prove their worth. But more to the point, advertisers won't be appeased by statements such as "we're waiting for the rest of the market to go under, then we'll unleash the lawyers on the government". That looks like you're not willing to lead the counter-attack to the assault on your livelihood - bad juju, that.
On the post: How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
Re: An argument built on imaginary slights
What's going to be rich is when, even before the court cases on the constitutionality of any law requiring the hosting of all content, is the court cases of those companies who are forced to close all comments for fear of being penalized by the government. At that point, no advertiser will foot the bill for some stale static pages, and income to those companies will essentially evaporate. That''s an even bigger "interference with business model" that will get the ball rolling much more quickly, I'm pretty sure.
On the post: How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
Re: The freakin ISS is going to be seeing that projection...
Republican: Research is for nerds, you know, the little people.
Also Republican: I'm too important to listen to little people who do that kind of thing. You just listen to me, and obey everything I say, or I'll get you. Just watch, you'll see.
On the post: How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
Re: Re: That's How
^^^ Not just "wrote", as in the past tense, but everything he posts live - it's all beyond the pale when viewed through the lens of reality. I personally wonder at his every post, that he's not been hospitalized for gross manifestations of clinical inability to successfully relate to the real world.
On the post: Signal Founder Cracks Cellebrite Phone Hacking Device, Finds It Full Of Vulns
Re: Re: tiny correction?
@ James,
I don't want to argue so early in the morning, but I can say with impunity that I'm able to use the Enter key as I wish when in a Text Box, and it will create a new line, every time. To expect the Enter key to act as a "Submit" switch is an absolute no-no when using a text entry form (a Text Box). That's why designers put a "Submit" button just outside of the Text Box itself.
What likely happens, and I'm no stranger to this phenomenon, is that a laptop's touchpad is always looking for ways to screw the keyboardist by doing something that wasn't desired. If the hand is anywhere near the overly sensitive capacitance device (the touchpad), then depending on where the cursor was sitting, it's very conceivable that the Submit action was triggered, and the rest of the story is told in tears, such as Ceyarracks had to do. I finally just reached in and physically disconnected the bleepin' thing, and hooked up an external mouse. Renders the laptop's mobility a few index points lower, but I'm no longer frustrated at things happening when I don't want or expect them to happen.
On the post: EFF, College Student Sue Proctorio Over DMCAs On Fair Use Critique Tweets Of Software
Re: I would expect better from EFF
The problem comes to a head from a slightly circuitous route. While Proctorio is not itself a government actor, nor does being a contractor to a public school make them a government actor, the fact remains that they abused the DMCA process via the courts. Since the courts are indeed part of the overall government structure, we now have nexus to 1A, and that puts Proctorio on the hot seat.
Using "free speech" to object to another person's free speech is fine. But
is hard to accomplish when it makes the news, whether for a criminal or a civil action.
Creating a "novel" use of the law, particularly one that was not intended by the legislators, always brings scrutiny of the undesired sort. Proctorio will go down in flames on this one.
On the post: The Other George Floyd Story: How Media Freedom Led To Conviction In His Killer's Trial
Re: Re: "A. Stephen Stone" show ONE not on topic and civil
Your problem is that you wanted to be treated as if you were an adult, but you act (which speaks louder than words) as if you were a two-year-old. We don't particularly appreciate people who make unfounded accusations as if they were prizes found in Cracker-Jack boxes. For the great majority of us, we can easily tolerate a spectrum of opinions, but it's much easier to digest when it's not written in such an accusatory tone of language. Capish?
On the post: Federal Court Tells Minnesota State Police To Stop Attacking, Harassing, And Arresting Journalists Covering Protests
Re: Re:
I'd like this, except that by and large, journalists don't go around skulking at the fringes of a crowd, then tossing fire-bombs and other destructive devices at buildings, people, etc. And we all know that where you find law-abiding citizens, you'll also find asshelmets galore, don't we.
But yes, everyone and his brother can forge a credential that will pass a quick muster. The only real solution is for "on-the-scene" journalists to submit to a photo database for cops to use while demonstrations are in progress. And even that can be finessed, though doing so will take a little more time and skill.
On the post: Apple Tells Congress That It Will Reallow Parler's App In The App Store, Now That It Has A Moderation Plan In Place
Re:
Ye gads, yet again. Sigh.
OK, justme, here we go. Buckle up and keep your dramamine handy....
Censorship is defined as one party attempting to interfere with another party's attempt to speak (promote an idea) to yet another party. Don't make the mistake of confusing that with the word 'moderation', there's a world of difference. Since the arch-conservatives have decided to label people with brains as "woke", I'll tender that we "woke" folk should start calling them "sleepers", as they certainly don't want to wake up and smell the coffee - that might make them appear to be intelligent, and they can't have that, can they? OTOH, doing such would mean that I've stooped down to their level of ignomy, and I really don't want to sling mud with them, they'd pummel me with greater experience. Eh, best to not go down that road. Never mind.
Absolutely the best way to conduct life. However, if one keeps their head buried in the sand, one will definitely get their ass kicked by those who don't hide their heads in the sand..... or rather, by those who keep sticking their heads where the sun will never shine. To wit, it's OK to express an opinion, even an unpopular one, but it's NOT OK to call for violent action against someone (or more than one) just because they don't like your opinion - that's verboten, plain and simple. Doing so steps over the line of mere "speech" and treads into the realm of calling for the commission of harm upon another person. I'd lay odds that you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of such a call to action/violence, eh?
See my statement above about the difference between free-flowing ideas/opinions and calls for taking the law into one's own hands. I hope it hasn't escaped your notice that most of the whoop-de-doo over that last several months/years has been about calls to violence, either implicit or explicit. Not a good look for "free flowing ideas and opinions". In my opinion, of course.
You are certainly correct on this one. I do wonder, however, how it is that you can be so haphazard in swinging from one side of the bar to the other, in just a few sentences. But watch this, Bunky - it's not about free speech at all. That's yet another failed attempt at misdirection foisted upon you (and other believers). Pay attention, we're coming to the good part:
You will recall (do I need to put that in caps for you?) that 1A works as a limit on government at all levels, period. It says nothing about what private citizens (and by extension from the Supreme Court, corporations) can do to each other, at least in terms of speech, and my favorite part - association with others.
Let me go over that last bit with you, in somewhat more detail. 1A also says that the government cannot prohibit members of the public from "peaceful assembly" (paraphrased), and that's the true heart of the matter here. No matter how much, nor how loud, conservatives scream and holler that they're being "shut down", they aren't - there are always, always other outlets for those crybabies to go tattle on "the mean people over there". Contrast that with the government - if they were to "shut you up", you'd be totally unable to go anywhere in order to complain, isn't that right?
What's at play here is the fact that Facebook, et al. are private citizens who choose not to associate ("peacefully assemble") with others that don't think alike, at least to some degree. Fb in particular is OK with outrageous misfits that thumb their noses at adults, but they do take steps to end everyone's misery when said asshelmets step over the line and start espousing their opinions as calls to action to alleviate their private grievances. And again, I'm getting the sense from your statements that you would not want to be in the boots of someone who is being "censored/moderated" because they're acting like a two-year-old....am I correct on that one too?
On the post: Josh Hawley: We Must Break Up Companies Whose Politics I Disagree With For Discriminating Against People Whose Politics I Agree With
Re:
Either that, or he simply bought the ballot box. Do recall that #45 himself said that the election would be rigged. Not "might be", but "would", period. I think we're seeing the proof of that, sorry to say.
On the post: The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality
Re:
No, there should be something punishable, and there is indeed.... it's called ignorance when one is being charitable, and willful stupidity when one is calling a spade a spade.
An old saw goes something like "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance". Congress is proving that true every day, but the ones paying for that ignorance is us, the public citizenry.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: When
Don't tell me, let me guess.... you were using Lynx, but no one told you how to access Archie, right?
On the post: PlayStation Y2K-Like Battery Bug About To Become A Problem As Sony Shuts Down Check In Servers
Re: Re: Re: Possible workaround
Because they're busy playing games, instead of learning something a bit more challenging???
On the post: Republican's 'Big Tech Accountability' Platform Calls For Both More And Less Moderation, And A 'Not Fairness Doctrine' Fairness Doctrine
Perhaps because they're paid to not understand it? According to this article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wall-street-gave-dollar435-million-to-gop-lawmakers-who-vote d-to-overturn-the-presidential-election/ar-BB1fIUFj?li=BBnb7Kz, those congresspersons who voted to overturn the popular and electoral elections were the beneficiaries of the Financial Sector's largesse, to the tune of $43+ million bucks. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy scarfed up more than 10% of that, at $4.8 million over the last two years. And so on and so forth.... (Amazingly enough, the House took the bulk of that money, the Senate didn't fare so well. Go figure.)
I'd say that the Supreme Court should be laughing up their collective sleeve right about now, as that article shows the direct result of their Citizens United decision, back in 2010.
On the post: Republican's 'Big Tech Accountability' Platform Calls For Both More And Less Moderation, And A 'Not Fairness Doctrine' Fairness Doctrine
The first problem here is proclaiming that the Republicans have a platform at all. As crade noted, slightly above, that's an oxymoron right there. But I'll go one further - all they have is a loose cohesion of personal agendas, centering around #45's personal agenda for America. Need I remind anyone that this means returning our country to the post-WWII era, or even earlier.
If I were in charge at Wharton Business School, I'd be so embarrassed for having to admit that this joker was given one of our sheepskins that I'd rescind it, post haste.
On the post: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Google/Apple Criticized... For Seeking To Protect Privacy In UK Gov't Covid Contact Tracing
Re: Re: Re: pot, meet kettle
Mike might've, or might not've, flipped a switch, so to speak. However, my finger is never very far from the magic "call it like it is" button. Guess what....
On the post: The Pillow Dude's 'Free Speech' Social Media Website Will Moderate 'Swear Words' Because Of Course It Will
That right there is priceless! Do keep us informed of your adventures, please.
They won't be able to, because AC (immediately above) and others of like mind will beat the "real" ones to the punch. Often and repeatedly, ad finitum. Hell, I'm tempted to sign up as "TheRealJoshHawley'sMentor", but I don't want to step on CJ Robert's toes. He might be even funnier than I could ever be, who knows.
Next >>