In other words, he's gonna fuck the American public one last time on his way out the door.
If he's going to be working in the Telecom sector (and I agree that'll probably be his fate), then what makes you think we'll be fucked only one more time?
No, I don't believe #45 for a minute, not even a second. He's lied to the American public (and who knows who else) more than 20,000 times since he took office - why do you think he'd start telling the truth now? Without names and preferably with badge numbers, we'll never know for sure.
However, I am reminded of #45's call to arms about all the caravan "men coming to rape and kill your wives and mothers". That was an imaginary threat - this is too real for my personal comfort.
the DHS task force -- ALLEGEDLY composed of CBP, ICE, and FPS officers -- rolled into Portland Gestapo-style
T, FTFY
Unless this ACLU lawsuit can produce some hard evidence to the contrary, then I and others like me will continue to doubt that a majority, if not all, of those Gestapo-like persons were actually American. I mean, come on, are you really gonna put the smack-down on your own mother... or one of her close friends? If so, they you're a Class A candidate for forced removal of your head from your ass so that your rose-colored glass belly button no longer distorts your vision.
If sites are sharing their practices for defining prohibited content, it risks creating a de facto standard of acceptable speech across the Internet. This undermines site operators’ ability to set the specific content standards that best enable their communities to thrive.
Hmmm. Perhaps those particular site operators might wish to re-evaluate what their community considers to be their central tenet. I posit that if it's something that the much greater majority of the population deems "unacceptable", then it might be prudent to avoid "going there".
Free speech is one thing, the consequences of speaking freely are another thing entirely. The very term "unacceptable" connotes that a reaction will likely follow, and such may not stop with a simple banning and the like.
And yes, there are going to be a lot of "false positives" that require human intervention, I get that. But I'm also dead certain that I won't be here on this mortal coil before they finally get it all straightened out and everyone is happy with the way the content moderation on the Internet works. It's a long road, and probably more bumpy that some people will like, but if it happened any quicker, somebody is just gonna keep tugging on Superman's cape, so to speak.
The state's prosecutors and the courts both know the lay of the land. What they want is precedent to overcome those pesky safeguards that need to just go away (as far as they are concerned). Until a "victim" (a defendent) can cough up enough money to pay a lawyer to take this to the Federal courts, and possibly all the way to the top, New Jersey now has a workable exception to 5A. Glad I don't live there.
It seems to me that no prior commenter, as yet, has seen what's really driving this trainwreck. Aside from absolutely everyone in the current administration above the rank of dog catcher not knowing how to spell the word 'technology', let alone understand it's most basic precepts, this CF is not, and never was, about security. That's the Great Red Herring that #45 is dragging across the path.
What's really driving this, and it should be obvious, is the BrainWreck-in-Charge is attempting a retaliation against a foreign company for a prank pulled on him by Americans. You all do recall that a great number of anti-#45-ers used TikTok to order reservations for the Tulsa rally, yes? And you also know what happened vis-a-vis the actual use of those reservations, right?
Well, #45 has one glaring error in his I/O stack, and that is that he can't drop a grudge against anyone that he feels slighted him. And like other social media being accused of causing idiots (markdown for strikethrough needed!) conservatives to self-cancel (instead of recognizing their inherently self-destructive emulation of a Jim Jones follower in the first place), TikTok is now being targeted for the actions of others, just because they had the gall to provide the service that was used to pull off this prank.
And for my money, #45 wants TikTok sold to an American company for one reason only - so he can then abuse his power to order them to shut it down, and on the way to that goal, remove all of the offending content (read: the memes that mock him). Yes, he want's TikTok sold to a large corporation that can afford to buy it, just so he can then remove it from our daily lives.... or so he thinks he can. I'm quite certain that no fair-minded judge is going to simply wave their hand and tell TikTok's buyer "tough shit, now shut it down".
While Google seems to be the face of this action, it would be prudent to recall that Facebook is also on the firing line here. And for those who arrived late to the party: in 2005, Murdock's News Corp purchased MySpace for $580M. Just six years later, the "dead as a doornail" MySpace was unloaded for only $35M - a 94% loss. He's held a personal grudge against The Zuck ever since then, and is always on the lookout for ways to recoup his losses, aka "get even".
I think adding Google into the mix is just a red herring to keep the spotlight away from this little tidbit. Thought admittedly, the money from that source as well would not be ignored. ;)
Well, I happen to "function" on a higher level then, because I recall where 144 years ago, SCOTUS sorted out this question once and for all - corporations have the same rights and duties as a "living, breathing human being". The reason for that decision was something called a legal fiction, and that was based upon the 14th Amendment. Go look it up, and be amazed.
I don't think I want to pay for that battle, TVYM, my wallet is already suffering enough as it is. However, if you meant to say "battle worth paying to watch it", then yes, I'm sure I could come up with a suitably small spectator's fee. (Make the fee too large, and I'll just fire up the torrent machine.)
That's just like #45, he thinks that he can issue orders to private persons, and they'll be followed slavishly. Sorry, pal, no can do. Even if you stacked very person on the Supreme Court with your golfing buddies, the Constitution and its Amendments will still carry the day. IOW, neither you, Congress, nor the courts can dictate how a private party may conduct a conversation, whether it's private or public. And doubly sadly for you, companies and corporations have long since been declared to have the same status as a naturally born person (citizen of the USA or otherwise), which confers upon them the same rights (and duties).
What is so farcical that I don't know if I should curse or cry, is that what #45 wants to do is exactly the same thing as what he's claiming that social media companies are already doing - controlling what appears on their systems. Jesus Christ on a jumped-up Pogo stick, how I wish that ignorance was painful.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Does Richard Blumenthal Always Feel The
In any case, the problem of widespread gullibility / lack of critical thinking ability can generally be traced to an abysmal education system, where critical thinking is actively and aggressively discouraged.
This!! I am indeed mortified at what the past several decades of the American education system has done to our country. Shameful, that's all I can say (politely).
Oh, and I like 'critical thinking' more than my previous use of 'rational thinking'. To bad for me that I can't go back and edit my earlier post. Thanks for that. ;)
Very cogent. But I think I could shortcut your letter, and the diatribes of those who contributed 'case studies' to your reasoning thus:
Come on people, stop disguising your emotional outbursts as rational thinking. Or as a famous wag once said "Put brain in gear before engaging mouth".
The very definition of over-reaction is to use emotion where rationality would've been the correct response. Hmmm, sounds like a standard response by certain members of society, the ones who wear a badge, doesn't it.....
Sad, just sad that we have to go through all this. Whatever happened to the KISS principle?
Ohhh, I love it, an oxymoron describing a senatorial moron. ;)
But as to the Federal anti-SLAPP business, I don't agree quite so much. Instead, I'd propose the following scenario:
Lawyers must take, and pass, a Continuing Education class focused solely on Sections 230 and 1A. A test of no small effort must be passed before a lawyer can present a case in court, showing that he's not acting friviously out of ignorance.
Further:
Judges must also take and pass that same course, so as to be cognizant of what law is applicable, and to readily understand if the attorney(s) is/are properly presenting the case. This also works to let attorneys know that they won't be able to easily baffle a judge with bullshit.
Lacking either of those two qualifications, no case can be brought to bar, period. That will bring most actions to a screeching halt, trust me.
Finally, it is my sad duty to inform you that a legislative body full of lawyers is not going to make a law that penalizes one of their own brethren. Any forthecoming anti-SLAPP law will perforce have penalties, but they will of course devolve onto the plaintiff, not the representing attorney. I'd bet next year's paycheck that judges will not be required to sanction an attorney for being ignorant, nor even for being abusive of the law. Which is why my proposal above might be the better solution. (Predicated on a tough course, written by a small committee of highly-regarded law professors, and vetted by the ABA, and then passed into statutory law.)
Oh come on, Mike - what's the first thing out of your mouth (well, out of your fingers at the keyboard).... it's always a variation of "follow the money". Blumenthal is being paid to raise a ruckus, that's all. The only thing that baffles me is, why isn't 4chan or Anonymous doxing the 'good senator', exposing his financials to the world at large.
Posing as a federal employee throwing out threats...
Yeah, that's a federal crime...
Oh? And how do you describe what's been done in the Oval Office for the past 41 months? I don't see him even facing even any charges, let alone any jail time, sad to have to say.
On the post: FCC Boss Pai Urged To Accept Trump Loss, Pause Dumb Attack On Social Media
Is it "getting even", or is it "cleaning up mess"?
If I had Biden's ear when it comes to nominations, I'd whisper that he should bring back Tom Wheeler as the FCC Chairperson. Just sayin'....
On the post: FCC Boss Pai Urged To Accept Trump Loss, Pause Dumb Attack On Social Media
Re: Re:
If he's going to be working in the Telecom sector (and I agree that'll probably be his fate), then what makes you think we'll be fucked only one more time?
On the post: WHO Is Blocking Commenters From Even Mentioning Taiwan On Its Facebook Page
Did anyone consider trying "Formosa", instead of Taiwan?
On the post: Billy Mitchell's Defamation Case Against Twin Galaxies Over 'Donkey Kong' High Score Can Go Forward
Re: Coverage of this D0nkey K0ng case
Being called by Gabriel Iglesias....
On the post: ACLU Sues Federal Officers Over Excessive Force Deployed Against Portland Protesters
Re: Re:
@ Thad,
No, I don't believe #45 for a minute, not even a second. He's lied to the American public (and who knows who else) more than 20,000 times since he took office - why do you think he'd start telling the truth now? Without names and preferably with badge numbers, we'll never know for sure.
However, I am reminded of #45's call to arms about all the caravan "men coming to rape and kill your wives and mothers". That was an imaginary threat - this is too real for my personal comfort.
On the post: ACLU Sues Federal Officers Over Excessive Force Deployed Against Portland Protesters
T, FTFY
Unless this ACLU lawsuit can produce some hard evidence to the contrary, then I and others like me will continue to doubt that a majority, if not all, of those Gestapo-like persons were actually American. I mean, come on, are you really gonna put the smack-down on your own mother... or one of her close friends? If so, they you're a Class A candidate for forced removal of your head from your ass so that your rose-colored glass belly button no longer distorts your vision.
On the post: ACLU Sues Federal Officers Over Excessive Force Deployed Against Portland Protesters
Re:
Anonymous Cowards would be comical if they weren't so hell-bent on being ignorant and/or stupid.
On the post: Content Moderation Knowledge Sharing Shouldn't Be A Backdoor To Cross-Platform Censorship
Hmmm. Perhaps those particular site operators might wish to re-evaluate what their community considers to be their central tenet. I posit that if it's something that the much greater majority of the population deems "unacceptable", then it might be prudent to avoid "going there".
Free speech is one thing, the consequences of speaking freely are another thing entirely. The very term "unacceptable" connotes that a reaction will likely follow, and such may not stop with a simple banning and the like.
And yes, there are going to be a lot of "false positives" that require human intervention, I get that. But I'm also dead certain that I won't be here on this mortal coil before they finally get it all straightened out and everyone is happy with the way the content moderation on the Internet works. It's a long road, and probably more bumpy that some people will like, but if it happened any quicker, somebody is just gonna keep tugging on Superman's cape, so to speak.
On the post: New Jersey Supreme Court Says 'Forgone Conclusion' Trumps Fifth Amendment In Crooked Cop Case
Once again, into the breech....
The state's prosecutors and the courts both know the lay of the land. What they want is precedent to overcome those pesky safeguards that need to just go away (as far as they are concerned). Until a "victim" (a defendent) can cough up enough money to pay a lawyer to take this to the Federal courts, and possibly all the way to the top, New Jersey now has a workable exception to 5A. Glad I don't live there.
On the post: Tim Wu Joins The Ban TikTok Parade, Doesn't Clarify What The Ban Actually Accomplishes
It seems to me that no prior commenter, as yet, has seen what's really driving this trainwreck. Aside from absolutely everyone in the current administration above the rank of dog catcher not knowing how to spell the word 'technology', let alone understand it's most basic precepts, this CF is not, and never was, about security. That's the Great Red Herring that #45 is dragging across the path.
What's really driving this, and it should be obvious, is the BrainWreck-in-Charge is attempting a retaliation against a foreign company for a prank pulled on him by Americans. You all do recall that a great number of anti-#45-ers used TikTok to order reservations for the Tulsa rally, yes? And you also know what happened vis-a-vis the actual use of those reservations, right?
Well, #45 has one glaring error in his I/O stack, and that is that he can't drop a grudge against anyone that he feels slighted him. And like other social media being accused of causing idiots (markdown for strikethrough needed!) conservatives to self-cancel (instead of recognizing their inherently self-destructive emulation of a Jim Jones follower in the first place), TikTok is now being targeted for the actions of others, just because they had the gall to provide the service that was used to pull off this prank.
And for my money, #45 wants TikTok sold to an American company for one reason only - so he can then abuse his power to order them to shut it down, and on the way to that goal, remove all of the offending content (read: the memes that mock him). Yes, he want's TikTok sold to a large corporation that can afford to buy it, just so he can then remove it from our daily lives.... or so he thinks he can. I'm quite certain that no fair-minded judge is going to simply wave their hand and tell TikTok's buyer "tough shit, now shut it down".
On the post: Google Warns Australians That The Government's Plan To Tax Google To Give Money To Newspapers Will Harm Search & YouTube
Re: Re:
While Google seems to be the face of this action, it would be prudent to recall that Facebook is also on the firing line here. And for those who arrived late to the party: in 2005, Murdock's News Corp purchased MySpace for $580M. Just six years later, the "dead as a doornail" MySpace was unloaded for only $35M - a 94% loss. He's held a personal grudge against The Zuck ever since then, and is always on the lookout for ways to recoup his losses, aka "get even".
I think adding Google into the mix is just a red herring to keep the spotlight away from this little tidbit. Thought admittedly, the money from that source as well would not be ignored. ;)
On the post: Charter Spectrum Tells FCC Broadband Caps Are 'Popular' As It Tries To Kill Merger Conditions Preventing Them
Re: Just more of the current way of doing things
Oh, come on now, think BIG! There are fools enough who are drinking the Flavor-Aid every day. At last count, roughly 60 million of 'em.
On the post: Days After FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly Suggests Trump's Section 230 Exec Order Is Unconstitutional... His Renomination To The FCC Is Withdrawn
Re:
Well, I happen to "function" on a higher level then, because I recall where 144 years ago, SCOTUS sorted out this question once and for all - corporations have the same rights and duties as a "living, breathing human being". The reason for that decision was something called a legal fiction, and that was based upon the 14th Amendment. Go look it up, and be amazed.
On the post: Russian Stream-Rip Sites Attempt To Take Jurisdiction Issue All The Way To SCOTUS
Re: Does this show..
I don't think I want to pay for that battle, TVYM, my wallet is already suffering enough as it is. However, if you meant to say "battle worth paying to watch it", then yes, I'm sure I could come up with a suitably small spectator's fee. (Make the fee too large, and I'll just fire up the torrent machine.)
On the post: NTIA Follows Trump's Unconstitutional Order To Request The FCC Review Section 230
That's just like #45, he thinks that he can issue orders to private persons, and they'll be followed slavishly. Sorry, pal, no can do. Even if you stacked very person on the Supreme Court with your golfing buddies, the Constitution and its Amendments will still carry the day. IOW, neither you, Congress, nor the courts can dictate how a private party may conduct a conversation, whether it's private or public. And doubly sadly for you, companies and corporations have long since been declared to have the same status as a naturally born person (citizen of the USA or otherwise), which confers upon them the same rights (and duties).
What is so farcical that I don't know if I should curse or cry, is that what #45 wants to do is exactly the same thing as what he's claiming that social media companies are already doing - controlling what appears on their systems. Jesus Christ on a jumped-up Pogo stick, how I wish that ignorance was painful.
On the post: Why Does Richard Blumenthal Always Feel The Need To Lie About Section 230?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Does Richard Blumenthal Always Feel The
This!! I am indeed mortified at what the past several decades of the American education system has done to our country. Shameful, that's all I can say (politely).
Oh, and I like 'critical thinking' more than my previous use of 'rational thinking'. To bad for me that I can't go back and edit my earlier post. Thanks for that. ;)
On the post: What That Harper's Letter About Cancel Culture Could Have Said
Mike,
Very cogent. But I think I could shortcut your letter, and the diatribes of those who contributed 'case studies' to your reasoning thus:
The very definition of over-reaction is to use emotion where rationality would've been the correct response. Hmmm, sounds like a standard response by certain members of society, the ones who wear a badge, doesn't it.....
Sad, just sad that we have to go through all this. Whatever happened to the KISS principle?
On the post: Why Does Richard Blumenthal Always Feel The Need To Lie About Section 230?
Re:
Ohhh, I love it, an oxymoron describing a senatorial moron. ;)
But as to the Federal anti-SLAPP business, I don't agree quite so much. Instead, I'd propose the following scenario:
Further:
Lacking either of those two qualifications, no case can be brought to bar, period. That will bring most actions to a screeching halt, trust me.
Finally, it is my sad duty to inform you that a legislative body full of lawyers is not going to make a law that penalizes one of their own brethren. Any forthecoming anti-SLAPP law will perforce have penalties, but they will of course devolve onto the plaintiff, not the representing attorney. I'd bet next year's paycheck that judges will not be required to sanction an attorney for being ignorant, nor even for being abusive of the law. Which is why my proposal above might be the better solution. (Predicated on a tough course, written by a small committee of highly-regarded law professors, and vetted by the ABA, and then passed into statutory law.)
On the post: Why Does Richard Blumenthal Always Feel The Need To Lie About Section 230?
Oh come on, Mike - what's the first thing out of your mouth (well, out of your fingers at the keyboard).... it's always a variation of "follow the money". Blumenthal is being paid to raise a ruckus, that's all. The only thing that baffles me is, why isn't 4chan or Anonymous doxing the 'good senator', exposing his financials to the world at large.
On the post: The Need For A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Is Clear And Overwhelming
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh? And how do you describe what's been done in the Oval Office for the past 41 months? I don't see him even facing even any charges, let alone any jail time, sad to have to say.
Next >>