Yep. And whoever wins the primary of their respective parties AND has the strongest lead generally tends to win. In 2008, any Dem would have won because Dubya had fouled things up so badly, it was a shoe-in.
Business model rely on YouTube? Getting booted is essentially being booted offline. No other similar site even comes close to the number of eyes that YouTube has. Another site is not an option if it is included in the business model.
Then you need a better business model. You can get booted off very easily if you're not careful; three unfairly issued DMCA reports can get you sent off pretty quickly.
Business model rely on hosting company? Getting booted means you can't rent space at this mall, you will have to rent space elsewhere. Try the mall across the street, I see a sign saying "Space for Rent."
See my last point.
Which do you think is the worst to be booted from?
I've not been booted from either. I changed my web hosting service twice to get a better deal. When I was running a business, it wasn't affected by moving.
Why must one company pay the emotional and financial toll to host legal speech they don't want to, but not another?
There's a world of difference between discrimination against a protected class and an invalid DMCA claim that caused a webhost to boot a website for fear of being sued.
If it is about legal free speech, you should be defending it, whether you agree with it or not, hence why I feel it is about booting people you don't like.
Off-topic. Hosting company fears lawsuit for copyright/trademark infringement, remembers Dotcom, boots website to save itself the hassle of going to court. Both Dotcom and Adland were compliant but it wasn't enough to save them. If powerful entities want you booted, they will get you booted.
That the public doesn't bother to use others is up to them. Which of the many others is your preferred option?
All along, you were scarcely able to conceal glee that Google would actually be advantaged. As I agreed, because I think the EU / globalists are aligned with Google for its surveillance aspects, not actually intending harm.
LOL! No. The only conspiracy here was that publishers' lobbyists pushed for a snippet tax only to have it blow up in their faces when Google complied with the new law.
It's always a matter of concentrated power versus many.
Nope.
First (taking surface aspects as "real"), we'll see how Google fares. It's possible that enough major publishers will refuse their content to make Google pay. After all, no one ever indexed print magazines, yet many even small ones did well.
Google is a search engine. It will still be used to find stuff until the others turn out to be more effective.
Also, it's quite possible that new niches will develop that WANT isolation, not to have too many "outsiders" look in.
Then why put them online?
Like Techdirt does, with its hiding all dissent.
Aww, diddums. Nobody owes you a platform. Get over yourself.
Second, you SORT OF MISLED at least ME by railing as if were MANDATORY. This is another topic that little interests me, and you're so utterly biased that can't write clearly. So I think that reasonable for me to conclude. -- Else WHY were you shrieking for several pieces! Google is NOT "taxed", eh? Just putting "robots.txt" into legal code?
Whoosh! That's the sound of the point of the article flying over your head. Let me simplify it for you:
EU pressured into enacting a snippet tax.
Google removes all snippets, provides tools for publishers to opt in to snippets appearing alongside search results; as much or as little as the publisher wants.
France: "Waaaaaaahhh! Google won't pay us to send us traffic! Booo hooo!"
Still waiting for the citizens' uprising to take effect despite the erosion of their constitutional rights. Remember Ferguson? Govt. 1, people nil.
Divide and conquer tactics prevent the groundswell required for a popular revolt. Result: anyone who does rise up is quickly cut down, and the beatings will continue until morale improves. Meanwhile, enablers gonna enable.
When they would be torn limb from limb if the people knew what they were doing, you would keep secrets too.
Unless it's Trump, in which case his rabid supporters would rally round to either dismiss the charges as fake news or deflect by pointing at Hillary, Obama, Biden, or whoever the latest boogeyman is.
How many more do you need? Concentration camps are primarily holding facitilies that detain people for no good reason other than that they're considered unwanted aliens. There have been deaths in these American places due to the neglect of the people housed there.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Wants Congress To Be Smarter About Tech... While Grossly Overstating Google & Facebook's Market Power
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep. And whoever wins the primary of their respective parties AND has the strongest lead generally tends to win. In 2008, any Dem would have won because Dubya had fouled things up so badly, it was a shoe-in.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Wants Congress To Be Smarter About Tech... While Grossly Overstating Google & Facebook's Market Power
Re:
And Barack Obama came out of nowhere; everyone expected Hillary to win in 2008.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Wants Congress To Be Smarter About Tech... While Grossly Overstating Google & Facebook's Market Power
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, flip that around: are self-aware people better at thinking for themselves? In that case, we should be pushing that alongside critical thinking.
On the post: Lawsuit: School Strip-Searched An 8-Year-Old Because Someone Found Feces On A Bathroom Floor
Re:
Amen.
On the post: Adland Shuts Down After Web Host Complies With Bullshit DMCA Notice
Re: Re:
Business model rely on YouTube? Getting booted is essentially being booted offline. No other similar site even comes close to the number of eyes that YouTube has. Another site is not an option if it is included in the business model.
Then you need a better business model. You can get booted off very easily if you're not careful; three unfairly issued DMCA reports can get you sent off pretty quickly.
Business model rely on hosting company? Getting booted means you can't rent space at this mall, you will have to rent space elsewhere. Try the mall across the street, I see a sign saying "Space for Rent."
See my last point.
Which do you think is the worst to be booted from?
I've not been booted from either. I changed my web hosting service twice to get a better deal. When I was running a business, it wasn't affected by moving.
Why must one company pay the emotional and financial toll to host legal speech they don't want to, but not another?
There's a world of difference between discrimination against a protected class and an invalid DMCA claim that caused a webhost to boot a website for fear of being sued.
If it is about legal free speech, you should be defending it, whether you agree with it or not, hence why I feel it is about booting people you don't like.
Off-topic. Hosting company fears lawsuit for copyright/trademark infringement, remembers Dotcom, boots website to save itself the hassle of going to court. Both Dotcom and Adland were compliant but it wasn't enough to save them. If powerful entities want you booted, they will get you booted.
On the post: Just As Everyone Predicted: EU Copyright Directive's Link Tax Won't Lead To Google Paying Publishers
Re: Re: another nothing leader because can't use name!
Anyhoo, YES, Google is big and may have enough power in the market to control it. THAT'S THE MAJOR PROBLEM FOR THE PUBLIC, SEE?
Other search engines exist. https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share
That the public doesn't bother to use others is up to them. Which of the many others is your preferred option?
All along, you were scarcely able to conceal glee that Google would actually be advantaged. As I agreed, because I think the EU / globalists are aligned with Google for its surveillance aspects, not actually intending harm.
LOL! No. The only conspiracy here was that publishers' lobbyists pushed for a snippet tax only to have it blow up in their faces when Google complied with the new law.
On the post: Just As Everyone Predicted: EU Copyright Directive's Link Tax Won't Lead To Google Paying Publishers
Re:
It's always a matter of concentrated power versus many.
Nope.
First (taking surface aspects as "real"), we'll see how Google fares. It's possible that enough major publishers will refuse their content to make Google pay. After all, no one ever indexed print magazines, yet many even small ones did well.
Google is a search engine. It will still be used to find stuff until the others turn out to be more effective.
Also, it's quite possible that new niches will develop that WANT isolation, not to have too many "outsiders" look in.
Then why put them online?
Like Techdirt does, with its hiding all dissent.
Aww, diddums. Nobody owes you a platform. Get over yourself.
Second, you SORT OF MISLED at least ME by railing as if were MANDATORY. This is another topic that little interests me, and you're so utterly biased that can't write clearly. So I think that reasonable for me to conclude. -- Else WHY were you shrieking for several pieces! Google is NOT "taxed", eh? Just putting "robots.txt" into legal code?
Whoosh! That's the sound of the point of the article flying over your head. Let me simplify it for you:
EU pressured into enacting a snippet tax.
Google removes all snippets, provides tools for publishers to opt in to snippets appearing alongside search results; as much or as little as the publisher wants.
On the post: Just As Everyone Predicted: EU Copyright Directive's Link Tax Won't Lead To Google Paying Publishers
Re: Re:
Well played, Google. Well played. Trololololol!
On the post: Just As Everyone Predicted: EU Copyright Directive's Link Tax Won't Lead To Google Paying Publishers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's why Google pulled out of Spain, AC.
On the post: What's Australian For Streisand Effect? Perhaps It's Fatty McFuckhead
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Such as robbing people of healthcare and a decent wage?
You sure have a weird way of looking at "giving."
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take this, mate. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/files/2018/04/main-qimg-45e6a254494d86adb6c0e6f5de36d7d a-c.jpg
You need it to protect you from their nefarious mind control rays.
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
Re: Re:
Still waiting for the citizens' uprising to take effect despite the erosion of their constitutional rights. Remember Ferguson? Govt. 1, people nil.
Divide and conquer tactics prevent the groundswell required for a popular revolt. Result: anyone who does rise up is quickly cut down, and the beatings will continue until morale improves. Meanwhile, enablers gonna enable.
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
Re: Re: Re:
Let me know how it goes should you feel constrained to defend yourself, bro.
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's how those who commit these atrocities get away with it.
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
Re: Re: in memory of murdered reporters
That's most likely due to the kind of folks who call the Constitution the "Con-stitution."
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
Re: Re:
When they would be torn limb from limb if the people knew what they were doing, you would keep secrets too.
Unless it's Trump, in which case his rabid supporters would rally round to either dismiss the charges as fake news or deflect by pointing at Hillary, Obama, Biden, or whoever the latest boogeyman is.
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
Re:
Horrible, but likely to be true. Such a world!
On the post: The Best People: White House Emailed Talking Points Meant For Surrogates To Dems, Tried To Recall Email Afterwards
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm down with that; I can't abide neocons.
On the post: The Best People: White House Emailed Talking Points Meant For Surrogates To Dems, Tried To Recall Email Afterwards
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-unimaginable-reality-of-american-concentration-cam ps
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-deten tion-facilities-trump/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fnation%2f2019%2f0 6%2f20%2fconcentration-camps-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-japanese-americans%2f%3f
https://www.gq.com/st ory/george-takei-american-concentration-camps
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-07-29/ameri ca-has-concentration-camps-on-its-border-thats-absurd-and-ahistorical
https://www.theatlantic.com/id eas/archive/2019/07/border-facilities/593239/
How many more do you need? Concentration camps are primarily holding facitilies that detain people for no good reason other than that they're considered unwanted aliens. There have been deaths in these American places due to the neglect of the people housed there.
On the post: Jerks 'Reporting' Women Who Swipe Left On Them In Tinder, Once Again Highlighting How Content Moderation Gets Abused
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're looking for partners in the wrong places. They have every right to refuse a man, and vice versa.
Next >>