All the while screaming about how the 'snowflakes' need to grow thicker skins and stop being offended so often, but as the saying goes 'every accusation a confession' with that lot.
Asked to give a specific example of which speech you/Woody are worried about being removed and your first response is to say that if you had the power you would take someone else's speech down simply out of spiteful hypocrisy.
It takes some real stupid to turn that question into an own-goal but damn if you didn't just manage it.
So long as those in power(both political and otherwise) refuse to admit why people are increasingly mad at the police those 'morale' issues and hostility are just going to keep rising, so funnily enough the die-hard 'Back the Blue, no matter what' types are doing a great disservice towards the police and making their jobs both more dangerous and less pleasant.
By refusing to even admit to the need for any reform they just add fuel to the fire of those pushing for it, and if they keep refusing to come to the table and admit that maybe the police aren't he shining paragons of justice that they like to present them are they just make people more likely to go from 'keep the system mostly as-is and just implement changes to curb the worst' to an actual 'defund the police since they refuse to change and create more problems than they solve'.
It may seem insane at first glance but it actually makes perfect sense if you operate from the dual positions of 'The Police Are Never Wrong' and 'Anything that might negatively impact the police is to be fought at all costs'. From that mindset it doesn't really matter what's in the order, all that matters is that it might put restrictions on the police and is therefore bad by definition.
That's a 'put up or shut up' situation if I ever saw one. Anyone who wants to argue that stun/flashbang grenades aren't dangerous should show how much they really believe that by voluntarily putting themselves in a position(say reading/watching tv in a room) where a third party lobs one at them without them knowing when or how close it might land to them.
Re: Re: Their claimed numbers make a lot more sense now
... can't tell if serious or joking, but on the off-chance you're serious it's the exact same guy in different colored wigs. That's it. ID.me is pitching their product as a way to crack down on/prevent 'fraud', if something that blatantly obvious is able to skate right past then clearly their system is in dire need of work before states(or especially federal agencies) rely on it for anything but 'How badly can it screw up today?'-level jokes.
Senators: 'We don't care about CSAM and can't be bothered to actually do anything about it so obviously internet platforms don't care about CSAM and can't be bothered to do anything about it either. We'll blame them for not getting rid of all of it and if anyone tries to point out that we haven't done anything but blame them we'll just call them Big Tech lobbyists/shill, it's brilliant!'
And as always, A vote for EARN IT is a vote for CSAM.
So long as there are no penalties for bogus claims there's no reason not to claim and monetize everything you can get away with. At most they might end up dropping a claim, but with the system so one-sided that a cat purring can be claimed I doubt that there's any penalty whatsoever if they decide that they do in fact have the rights, and right to monetize, whatever they claimed dibs on.
'They're not a repeat offender? We'll fix that...'
Ah yes, nothing makes a person less likely to engage in criminal behavior than stigmatization and harassment, alienating them from everyone around them and treating them as though they will never be anything but a criminal.
Only one explanation really, some dastardly left-wing agent right clicked on the pages to 'hack' them and changed up the numbers to make people think that the republicans overwhelmingly shot down amendments that would have allowed moderation of anti-vaccine, pro-terrorism and holocaust denial content in the 'we must protect conservative values' bill.
I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt so I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they're either trying to create that loophole for their own future use or future use of someone close to them.
'He wouldn't be so confident if he was wrong, so...'
Disgusting, but not surprising. He's already declared who the guilty party is and as their Dear Leader showed by example you never admit when you're wrong, instead just keep insisting you're right and enough gullible(at best) people will take your confidence as confirmation of begin correct.
Perhaps, but the fact remains that whether a judge ultimately buys the legal argument or not it's still one that the defendants currently don't have and that EARN IT would give to them, and for a bill touted as meant to help exploited children having the greatest beneficiaries of it being those doing the exploiting is worth pointing out.
It's telling that whether they're a dedicated troll or just plain demented their 'this is how things should be' involves stifling the overwhelming majority of creativity in favor of a tiny sliver 'allowed' and controlled by the rich and powerful.
There's thinking that you don't stand upon the shoulders of giants and then there's thinking that while doing everything you can to kill said giants so that no one can ever do so again.
On the post: Judge And Jury Say Sarah Palin Failed To Prove 'Actual Malice' In Defamation Case Against The NY Times
Re:
All the while screaming about how the 'snowflakes' need to grow thicker skins and stop being offended so often, but as the saying goes 'every accusation a confession' with that lot.
On the post: EARN ITs Big Knowledge 1st Amendment Problem
Re: Fallacies
A slug in the middle of the freeway is smarter than the average senator.
Objection, while there certainly are stupid people in congress it's a mistake to treat corruption as stupidity as that plays right into their hands.
On the post: EARN ITs Big Knowledge 1st Amendment Problem
Re: Re:
Asked to give a specific example of which speech you/Woody are worried about being removed and your first response is to say that if you had the power you would take someone else's speech down simply out of spiteful hypocrisy.
It takes some real stupid to turn that question into an own-goal but damn if you didn't just manage it.
On the post: Some Senators Are Freaking Out Because The White House Is Pitching Some Extremely Minor Police Reforms
Let's add a few more logs to that fire shall we?
So long as those in power(both political and otherwise) refuse to admit why people are increasingly mad at the police those 'morale' issues and hostility are just going to keep rising, so funnily enough the die-hard 'Back the Blue, no matter what' types are doing a great disservice towards the police and making their jobs both more dangerous and less pleasant.
By refusing to even admit to the need for any reform they just add fuel to the fire of those pushing for it, and if they keep refusing to come to the table and admit that maybe the police aren't he shining paragons of justice that they like to present them are they just make people more likely to go from 'keep the system mostly as-is and just implement changes to curb the worst' to an actual 'defund the police since they refuse to change and create more problems than they solve'.
On the post: Some Senators Are Freaking Out Because The White House Is Pitching Some Extremely Minor Police Reforms
Re:
It may seem insane at first glance but it actually makes perfect sense if you operate from the dual positions of 'The Police Are Never Wrong' and 'Anything that might negatively impact the police is to be fought at all costs'. From that mindset it doesn't really matter what's in the order, all that matters is that it might put restrictions on the police and is therefore bad by definition.
On the post: Some Senators Are Freaking Out Because The White House Is Pitching Some Extremely Minor Police Reforms
Re: Re:
That's a 'put up or shut up' situation if I ever saw one. Anyone who wants to argue that stun/flashbang grenades aren't dangerous should show how much they really believe that by voluntarily putting themselves in a position(say reading/watching tv in a room) where a third party lobs one at them without them knowing when or how close it might land to them.
On the post: ID.me Doesn't Have Enough Humans To Backstop Its AI, Allowed A Guy In A Bad Wig To Illegally Obtain $900,000 In Benefits
Re: Re: Their claimed numbers make a lot more sense now
... can't tell if serious or joking, but on the off-chance you're serious it's the exact same guy in different colored wigs. That's it. ID.me is pitching their product as a way to crack down on/prevent 'fraud', if something that blatantly obvious is able to skate right past then clearly their system is in dire need of work before states(or especially federal agencies) rely on it for anything but 'How badly can it screw up today?'-level jokes.
On the post: EARN ITs Big Knowledge 1st Amendment Problem
Enough projection to reach the moon...
Senators: 'We don't care about CSAM and can't be bothered to actually do anything about it so obviously internet platforms don't care about CSAM and can't be bothered to do anything about it either. We'll blame them for not getting rid of all of it and if anyone tries to point out that we haven't done anything but blame them we'll just call them Big Tech lobbyists/shill, it's brilliant!'
And as always, A vote for EARN IT is a vote for CSAM.
On the post: ID.me Doesn't Have Enough Humans To Backstop Its AI, Allowed A Guy In A Bad Wig To Illegally Obtain $900,000 In Benefits
Their claimed numbers make a lot more sense now
ID.me: 'There is an insane amount of fraud going on!'
Also ID.me: Falls for hilariously obvious fraud.
I think I might have an idea how so much of the claimed fraud is getting through...
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
Re:
Please show consideration to your fellow commentors and clean up any excess straw after you're done whaling away at the strawman you've created.
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
All gain, no pain
So long as there are no penalties for bogus claims there's no reason not to claim and monetize everything you can get away with. At most they might end up dropping a claim, but with the system so one-sided that a cat purring can be claimed I doubt that there's any penalty whatsoever if they decide that they do in fact have the rights, and right to monetize, whatever they claimed dibs on.
On the post: Eleventh Circuit Smacks Georgia Sheriff Around For Posting 'Don't Trick Or Treat Here' Signs In Sex Offenders' Yards
'They're not a repeat offender? We'll fix that...'
Ah yes, nothing makes a person less likely to engage in criminal behavior than stigmatization and harassment, alienating them from everyone around them and treating them as though they will never be anything but a criminal.
On the post: Penguin Random House Demands Removal Of Maus From Digital Library Because The Book Is Popular Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: conservative value
Only one explanation really, some dastardly left-wing agent right clicked on the pages to 'hack' them and changed up the numbers to make people think that the republicans overwhelmingly shot down amendments that would have allowed moderation of anti-vaccine, pro-terrorism and holocaust denial content in the 'we must protect conservative values' bill.
On the post: How EARN IT Could Give Abusers A Get Out Of Jail Free Card: By Making Evidence Inadmissible
Re:
I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt so I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they're either trying to create that loophole for their own future use or future use of someone close to them.
On the post: Missouri's Governor Still Insists Reporter Is A Hacker, Even As Prosecutors Decline To Press Charges
'He wouldn't be so confident if he was wrong, so...'
Disgusting, but not surprising. He's already declared who the guilty party is and as their Dear Leader showed by example you never admit when you're wrong, instead just keep insisting you're right and enough gullible(at best) people will take your confidence as confirmation of begin correct.
On the post: How EARN IT Could Give Abusers A Get Out Of Jail Free Card: By Making Evidence Inadmissible
Re:
Perhaps, but the fact remains that whether a judge ultimately buys the legal argument or not it's still one that the defendants currently don't have and that EARN IT would give to them, and for a bill touted as meant to help exploited children having the greatest beneficiaries of it being those doing the exploiting is worth pointing out.
On the post: How EARN IT Could Give Abusers A Get Out Of Jail Free Card: By Making Evidence Inadmissible
Great if you want more of that, not so much if not
I've said it before and I will keep saying it so long as there is anyone crazy, corrupt and/or deluded enough to support the bill:
A vote for EARN IT is a vote for CSAM.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
It's telling that whether they're a dedicated troll or just plain demented their 'this is how things should be' involves stifling the overwhelming majority of creativity in favor of a tiny sliver 'allowed' and controlled by the rich and powerful.
There's thinking that you don't stand upon the shoulders of giants and then there's thinking that while doing everything you can to kill said giants so that no one can ever do so again.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re:
Nothing like someone screeching about how terrible bridges are as they stand right upon one currently keeping them from plummeting into an abyss...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Concerned citizen
There is some dark humor in police accusing others of being members of dangerous gangs, yes.
Next >>