I think you are trying to make a subtle dig to "Send them home" but I don't think you fully realize what it would mean sending all those Canadians back north.
Canadians - our neighbors to the North - are by far the largest group of lawless invaders. So remember that as you are grabbing more pussies in the name of el Cheetos.
What? The government can't just go around seizing property left and right!
Good things Patents aren't property - they are limited licenses granted by the Feds that can and should be yanked if abused. You have no intrinsic "right" to exclusivity only a government backed and unnecessary monopoly.
Also - don't forget that the Federal Government enforces a strict policy of what can and can't be transmitted over the internet. Only material that the media companies approve of. Some call it "Copyright" and it is an absolute censorship tool...
especially when probably the vast majority of people on the planet would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment.
There is such overwhelming support of your shitty opinions about white power that sites such as the Daily Stormer and Gab exist. Knock yourself out but don't pretend you aren't just spouting hate because it makes you feel superior.
so what's the legal/constitutional principle that grants authority to the Federal government to control "any" content on radio/TV
The airwaves belong to the public and are licensed for use by the Feds, for the public good. Just like the DMV can fine you or take your license for speeding, the Feds can fine you or yank your broadcasting permit. So that thing.
Also, everything a TV show broadcasts is their speech, not someone else's. A letter to the editor may not be the newspaper's speech, but the editor has to read and approve it.
The Post Office can't - and shouldn't - read my mail, they just need to deliver it as is. And that is how ISP's should work....
i seem to remember the current president explaining to the russians that he's love to toss them in jail and presumably have them executed like Putin does.
On a brighter note, at least the blame was not attributed to our President.
If everyone is picking on him, it might be for some very good reasons. But we aren't being mean - we are just trying to speak our mind, unlike those snowflakes at Fox who can't say anything controversial about el Cheetos the rapist.
So krap-craft Etsy wouldn't be able to host sellers if they were liable for anything and everything that came thru the site.
eBay? Since they try to filter out bad stuff, they'd be held accountable for any bad products?
Or an eBook site that lets people self-publish - they'd be responsible if they they vetted the books.
But all Amazon has to do it put less effort into policing the marketplace, shedding their liability. I'm sure that will work well for buyers.
Actually allowing free speech, then YES, they should be protected under 230. They can't have it both ways which is what they have been doing.
Ah, i see you have a rather basic misunderstanding of 230. (Among other things) It's the right to moderate - not a straightjacket that bans moderation.
If you'd read the article, you'd know that it was created in response to bad court decisions that help companies liable if they moderated.
On the post: FBI, ICE Are Running Facial Recognition Searches Against State Drivers' Databases
Re: neighbors are neighbors
I think you are trying to make a subtle dig to "Send them home" but I don't think you fully realize what it would mean sending all those Canadians back north.
Canadians - our neighbors to the North - are by far the largest group of lawless invaders. So remember that as you are grabbing more pussies in the name of el Cheetos.
On the post: Claims Of 5G Health Risks Are Frequently Based On A Single, 20 Year Old Flawed Graph
Re: Re: Re:
That is certainly a huge potential problem. If the tower hits you, that is a "Direct Impact" however. :)
On the post: Drug Prices Are So Insane That The NY Times Is Recommending The US Gov't Just 'Seize The Patents'
Property
What? The government can't just go around seizing property left and right!
Good things Patents aren't property - they are limited licenses granted by the Feds that can and should be yanked if abused. You have no intrinsic "right" to exclusivity only a government backed and unnecessary monopoly.
On the post: Claims Of 5G Health Risks Are Frequently Based On A Single, 20 Year Old Flawed Graph
Re:
Especially if the wind blows the tower over onto your house!
On the post: Former Content Moderator Explains How Josh Hawley's Bill Would Grant Government Control Over Online Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also - don't forget that the Federal Government enforces a strict policy of what can and can't be transmitted over the internet. Only material that the media companies approve of. Some call it "Copyright" and it is an absolute censorship tool...
On the post: Former Content Moderator Explains How Josh Hawley's Bill Would Grant Government Control Over Online Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re:
especially when probably the vast majority of people on the planet would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment.
There is such overwhelming support of your shitty opinions about white power that sites such as the Daily Stormer and Gab exist. Knock yourself out but don't pretend you aren't just spouting hate because it makes you feel superior.
On the post: Former Content Moderator Explains How Josh Hawley's Bill Would Grant Government Control Over Online Speech
Re: Re: Biased?
Where?
I think that is over at the "Daily Stormer" site where Blue hangs out.
On the post: Former Content Moderator Explains How Josh Hawley's Bill Would Grant Government Control Over Online Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re:
so what's the legal/constitutional principle that grants authority to the Federal government to control "any" content on radio/TV
The airwaves belong to the public and are licensed for use by the Feds, for the public good. Just like the DMV can fine you or take your license for speeding, the Feds can fine you or yank your broadcasting permit. So that thing.
Also, everything a TV show broadcasts is their speech, not someone else's. A letter to the editor may not be the newspaper's speech, but the editor has to read and approve it.
The Post Office can't - and shouldn't - read my mail, they just need to deliver it as is. And that is how ISP's should work....
On the post: Former Content Moderator Explains How Josh Hawley's Bill Would Grant Government Control Over Online Speech
Re: The American Alt Right
false-advertising Techdirt.
Oh please - balls up and file a police report. What false advertising law does TD violate?
Go melt somewhere else snowflake. And go google the word "Proof" I don't think it means what you think it means.
On the post: The CIA Wants To Make It Easier To Jail Journalists And No One In Congress Is Stopping It From Happening
Toss them
i seem to remember the current president explaining to the russians that he's love to toss them in jail and presumably have them executed like Putin does.
On the post: WIPO Now Gets Into The Extrajudicial, Zero Due Process, Censorship Act Over Sites It Declares 'Infringing'
Re:
And yet, you’re still not willing to denounce corporations using copyright to censor legally protected speech.
But he IS ready to blame the jews for his problems. Go figure.
On the post: Another Way In Which Patents Contributed To The Opioid Crisis: Hospitals Ordered Not To Use Better, Less Problematic Medicines
Re:
On a brighter note, at least the blame was not attributed to our President.
If everyone is picking on him, it might be for some very good reasons. But we aren't being mean - we are just trying to speak our mind, unlike those snowflakes at Fox who can't say anything controversial about el Cheetos the rapist.
On the post: 5G's Latest Problem: Summer Temps Are Causing 5G Phones To Overheat
Bias?
One of the phones that overheated belonged to someone right-of-center. This is obviously proof of liberal bias.
On the post: Gab, Mastodon And The Challenges Of Content Moderation On A More Distributed Social Network
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, you have to keep the false dichotomy alive to avoid self-reflection, I get it.
He has the "science" of human prosperity to let him feel good, he doesn't need our upvotes Paul. (Master Degree in Master Race relations.)
On the post: Gab, Mastodon And The Challenges Of Content Moderation On A More Distributed Social Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When Grown Adults Are Cr
Did I miss anything?
You missed the part where Quis made up the idea that Reddit has an algorithm that can tell if a post is left or right leaning.
And the part where Quis says Reddit is "biased" because of the voting system which is the users, not the owners/administrators.
On the post: Another Way In Which Patents Contributed To The Opioid Crisis: Hospitals Ordered Not To Use Better, Less Problematic Medicines
Re: Re: Re: how harmful is IV acetaminophen?
And in the proper doses still so much safer than opioids.
On the post: EFF Hits AT&T With Lawsuit Over Sale Of User Location Data
Re: Why just Corporations?
IF did, it'd be applicable to EVERY corporation.
Why just corporations? Why not Intellectual Property? You can't love copyright and hate corporations, silly.
On the post: Another Way In Which Patents Contributed To The Opioid Crisis: Hospitals Ordered Not To Use Better, Less Problematic Medicines
Re: Re: Yes, I'm a Troll
Why don't you join me on that BASIC
Sure - Start by denouncing that tool of corporate censorship - Copyright. Go for it!
On the post: The Sixth Circuit Also Makes A Mess Of Section 230 And Good Internet Policy
Etsy Etc.
So krap-craft Etsy wouldn't be able to host sellers if they were liable for anything and everything that came thru the site.
eBay? Since they try to filter out bad stuff, they'd be held accountable for any bad products?
Or an eBook site that lets people self-publish - they'd be responsible if they they vetted the books.
But all Amazon has to do it put less effort into policing the marketplace, shedding their liability. I'm sure that will work well for buyers.
On the post: Section 230 Is Not Exceptional, It Is Not Unique, It Is Not A Gift: It's The Codification Of Common Law Liability Principles
Re: Re: Codifying Common Law since 1996
Actually allowing free speech, then YES, they should be protected under 230. They can't have it both ways which is what they have been doing.
Ah, i see you have a rather basic misunderstanding of 230. (Among other things) It's the right to moderate - not a straightjacket that bans moderation.
If you'd read the article, you'd know that it was created in response to bad court decisions that help companies liable if they moderated.
Next >>