Parading “free as in freedom” for licensing that doesn’t offer complete freedom… bugs me.
There is no way to offer complete freedom to everyone. If it's public domain, you cannot preserve users' freedoms to derivatives. If it's copyleft, you take away others' freedom to make it closed source. People like the Free Software Foundation feel that preserving peoples' freedom to take away others' freedoms (e.g. public domain) isn't enhancing freedom overall but detrimental to it. And that position makes sense to me.
["So, social media does not meet any of the core components of a common carrier."]
.
But neither does commercial radio & TV -- yet the Federal government heavily regulates them, including content censorship.
Federal Radio Acts of 1912 &1924 and Communications Act of 1934 say commercial radio broadcasters are common carriers and can be regulated however the government chooses. Well established law.
The FCC was created by Congress in the Communications Act for the purpose of broadly “regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio".
Internet communications are quite obviously wire (aka cable) & radio (aka wireless) communications.
Therefore, the FCC already has long had open legal authority to regulate the Internet as it chooses.
Quibbling now over the arcane term "Common Carrier" is futile and about a century too late.
Or be named after some group/subject that could use some protection (hello children!) or legislation but the contents of the bill do the exact opposite while causing a whole host of collateral effects.
Mike Parson is a very bad governor who beieves [sic] that his own IT team's very bad coding practices should not be blamed, and instead that he can attack journalists who ethically disclosed the vulnerability as "hackers" rather than take even the slightest bit of responsibility.
I can’t say what BB has done in the last year or so.
With the KS pipe shut down and the boarder ignored I have no reason to read them. They’re too pro-god-people for my general taste.
They were quite good about corrections in the past.
Except for the part where, xomtrary to Koby;s deliberate lies, the content is not passed off the platform to the user, but remains inextricably associated with the platform, unlike with actual transmission networks.
Facebook posts are Facebook posts. Twitter posts are twitter posts.
Notice that your phone calls aren't branded with "This caller brought to you by Bell-Atlantic!" and your web packets don't include "This server connected by Concast!"
"The plaintiff has to prove their claims before anonymity can be removed" is but one nail in the coffin for Jhon Smith's always-declared plans to defraud the court.
What also seems unaddressed by the court are the rights of people who aren't sex offenders.
It's bad enough to violate the offenders' rights but what about the people who haven't committed any crime who are the actual owners of some of these properties? If a guy who has the conviction is living at his parents' home, that doesn't mean his parents-- who have not been accused of, let alone convicted of any crime-- lose their private property rights against trespass, nor their 1st Amendment rights against having government propaganda posted on their property.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some
There is no way to offer complete freedom to everyone. If it's public domain, you cannot preserve users' freedoms to derivatives. If it's copyleft, you take away others' freedom to make it closed source. People like the Free Software Foundation feel that preserving peoples' freedom to take away others' freedoms (e.g. public domain) isn't enhancing freedom overall but detrimental to it. And that position makes sense to me.
On the post: Why It Makes No Sense To Call Websites 'Common Carriers'
commercial Radio & TV
["So, social media does not meet any of the core components of a common carrier."]
.
But neither does commercial radio & TV -- yet the Federal government heavily regulates them, including content censorship.
Federal Radio Acts of 1912 &1924 and Communications Act of 1934 say commercial radio broadcasters are common carriers and can be regulated however the government chooses. Well established law.
The FCC was created by Congress in the Communications Act for the purpose of broadly “regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio".
Internet communications are quite obviously wire (aka cable) & radio (aka wireless) communications.
Therefore, the FCC already has long had open legal authority to regulate the Internet as it chooses.
Quibbling now over the arcane term "Common Carrier" is futile and about a century too late.
On the post: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
Re: Re: I'm a hacker!
A crummy commercial?!
On the post: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
Re: Re: I'm a hacker!
d0n'7 y0u f1l7hy h4x0r |\/|1|<3 w1l g37 u xxx69xxx 1337
On the post: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
IkEgbWFuIG9uY2UgZHJlYW1lZCBoZSB3YXMgaW1wb3J0YW50LiBXaGVuIGhlIGF3b2tlLCBoZSBubyBsb25nZXIga25ldyBpZiBo ZSB3YXMgYSBpZGlvdCBkcmVhbWluZyBoZSB3YXMgYSBzYXZpb3IsIG9yIGEgamFja2FzcyB3aG8gaGFkIGRyZWFtZWQgaGUgd2Fz IGEgc21hcnQuIg==
On the post: ACLU & EFF Step Up To Tell Court You Don't Get To Expose An Anonymous Tweeter With A Sketchy Copyright Claim
Some people cant seem to get past the fact that DMCA does not mean Denying Mean Comments Act.
On the post: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
Even if it was encrypted, still doesn't explain why SSN were being sent...
On the post: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
Re: I'm a hacker!
https://www.fanpop.com/clubs/a-christmas-story/images/40073819/title/drink-ovaltine-animated-gif-fan art
On the post: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
Re: I'm a hacker!
ZDBuJzcgeTB1IGYxbDdoeSBoNHgwciB8XC98MXw8MyB3MWwgZzM3IHUgeHh4Njl4eHggMTMzNwo=
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who’s Karl?
And does, or does not, the majority of FOSS licensing require like or reciprocal licensing?
Hint: it does.
On the post: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
Remember, a Republican only makes an accusation if they're guilty of it.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
It’s unfortunate you believe that. I disagree but we all have the right to our own opinions.
I prefer our country secure both the northern and southern borders. And increase naval and cost guard patrols.
I have no problem, personally, with legal immigration and free-but-monitored travel in and through the country
On the post: New Right To Repair Bill Targets Obnoxious Auto Industry Behavior
Re: Re: Re: I just hope…
Or be named after some group/subject that could use some protection (hello children!) or legislation but the contents of the bill do the exact opposite while causing a whole host of collateral effects.
On the post: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
I'm a hacker!
Mike Parson is a very bad governor who beieves [sic] that his own IT team's very bad coding practices should not be blamed, and instead that he can attack journalists who ethically disclosed the vulnerability as "hackers" rather than take even the slightest bit of responsibility.
On the post: Turns Out It Was Actually The Missouri Governor's Office Who Was Responsible For The Security Vulnerability Exposing Teacher Data
In re: Mike Parson…
…an evergreen retort is needed:
Christ, what an asshole.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
I can’t say what BB has done in the last year or so.
With the KS pipe shut down and the boarder ignored I have no reason to read them. They’re too pro-god-people for my general taste.
They were quite good about corrections in the past.
On the post: Why It Makes No Sense To Call Websites 'Common Carriers'
Re: Loitering Signal Association
Except for the part where, xomtrary to Koby;s deliberate lies, the content is not passed off the platform to the user, but remains inextricably associated with the platform, unlike with actual transmission networks.
Facebook posts are Facebook posts. Twitter posts are twitter posts.
Notice that your phone calls aren't branded with "This caller brought to you by Bell-Atlantic!" and your web packets don't include "This server connected by Concast!"
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is not a Republican in congress today that would support the flat tax plan I do. Not one.
And there has never been a Republican tax plan I thought was good.
On the post: ACLU & EFF Step Up To Tell Court You Don't Get To Expose An Anonymous Tweeter With A Sketchy Copyright Claim
"The plaintiff has to prove their claims before anonymity can be removed" is but one nail in the coffin for Jhon Smith's always-declared plans to defraud the court.
On the post: Eleventh Circuit Smacks Georgia Sheriff Around For Posting 'Don't Trick Or Treat Here' Signs In Sex Offenders' Yards
Re: Re: 1st Amendment?
What also seems unaddressed by the court are the rights of people who aren't sex offenders.
It's bad enough to violate the offenders' rights but what about the people who haven't committed any crime who are the actual owners of some of these properties? If a guy who has the conviction is living at his parents' home, that doesn't mean his parents-- who have not been accused of, let alone convicted of any crime-- lose their private property rights against trespass, nor their 1st Amendment rights against having government propaganda posted on their property.
Next >>