Re: Try this another way, no name new subject line
I’d like to see your calculations, because I actually expected this to happen given how many Democrats (who took COVID seriously) and few Republicans (many of whom did not) voted by mail, and mail-in ballots have always leaned heavily to the left even during normal election. Then there’s the fact that improbable things happen all the time, and elections aren’t random at all, making computing specific probabilities like this about an election’s results—especially after the fact—quite problematic and highly inaccurate.
For an illustration of how dumb this logic is, imagine a deck of cards containing numbers from one to one quadrillion. I draw one of them. Regardless of which number I drew, the probability that I would draw that specific card is guaranteed to be one in a quadrillion. For something easier to picture, take an ordinary 52-card deck and draw five cards. Again, no matter what five cards I get, the chances of me getting that specific combination of cards is astronomically low.
Re: Oh, YES: corporations CAN violate your First Amendment Right
No, private corporations cannot violate your First Amendment Rights unless they specifically occupy one of the spaces (like holding elections to public office) traditionally and exclusively occupied by the government. (This exception is extremely narrow as made clear in a number of Supreme Court cases, including a very recent one.)
Again, here's Masnick's view that doubles up on his wish that corporations CONTROL speech on "platforms". -- He always omits this so can pretend it's just Section 230 that he views as enabling corporate control.
Regardless of his wishes, the fact is that §230, private property rights, and the 1A do allow corporations to control speech on platforms that they own. He has also explicitly stated a number of times that it’s not just §230. You even quote him saying that.
In fact, that's the KEY point of contention. Masnick says "platforms" are authorized to control speech regardless whether it's Constitutionally protected!
This is true. That’s also what the law says. Platform holders are authorized to control speech on their platforms regardless of whether the speech is constitutionally protected. You have not provided any counter-evidence to convince anyone otherwise.
"And, I think it's fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
Masnick is not hedging "lawyers say and I don't entirely agree", or "that isn't what I call serving The Public", but as VERY RARE for him STATES FLATLY.
The fact that he agrees with the law as is doesn’t change the fact that the law says what he says it does. And yes, that is what the law says. That Masnick is okay with that doesn’t change that.
By deeming it a fundamental "Right", Masnick STATES that he wants a few corporations to have absolute and arbitrary control of ALL MAJOR outlets for The Public!
Nope. Masnick has expressly said he wishes platforms went more open, and he is all for having more competition in this space. However, he is against the government dictating any of that. Furthermore, the 1A doesn’t guarantee you an audience of a certain size or even an audience at all.
He claims that YOUR Constitutional First Amendment Right in Public Forums are over-arched by what MERE STATUTE lays out!
No, he claims that these aren’t publicly owned forums but publicly accessible and privately owned forums run by legal persons (who happen to be corporations in these cases) who have the constitutional 1A right and fundamental property right to host or choose not to host any user’s 1A free speech on their privately owned forum at their discretion. Furthermore, this right is further protected by §230.
Re: Except... book publisher is not a host or conduit for books.
Here’s the thing: generally speaking, you can’t sue a bookstore or library for refusing to stock a particular book(s) that is/are sent to them. In particular, bookstores all have their own standards as to which books the will or won’t stock. Unless there’s something anticompetitive about it (refusing to sell books published by a rival store or something while also selling books it publishes), there’s no law that forces bookstores to stock certain books.
In fact, I don’t think you understand how bookstores work. Generally, they aren’t just given books to sell. They buy them (in bulk).
Similarly, libraries aren’t exactly required to lend out any books donated to them. Most often will, but that’s purely a philosophical thing (most libraries are very anti-censorship and are willing to lend out even the Mein Kampf or a dirty porn book so long as it isn’t illegal. It’s not a legal issue (outside of government-run libraries, but that’s because they’re publicly owned); privately owned libraries can choose which of the books or other media in their collection they will offer to lend visitors, but there’s no legal requirement that they have to do so for every book they have.
So no, bookstores and libraries don’t legally have to “host any books […] that come in no matter [] the origin or [] content UNLESS the content is illegal (CP, etc.)”. Outside of publicly owned libraries (which are bound by the 1A as government agencies), they have full legal discretion over what books or other media to make available to the public on their shelves.
Re: Section 230 immunizes hosting: it doesn't authorize censorin
A business, the host, invites / charges users to use its machinery.
And they get to decide whether the user may continue to use that machinery. If I get kicked out of a restaurant for saying something the owners don’t like, I have no legal recourse as long as I still get what I paid for: the food.
If they accept, users don't agree to be controlled: they expect SERVICE.
Actually, you might want to reread those TOS’s. You’ll find that they do include explicit provisions that allow the ones running the platform to remove content or kick off users for any number of reasons, even if everything the user did was perfectly legal and lawful.
Persons being able to publish freely so long as within well known common law limits is what Section 230 is to enable.
That’s only one part. The other part is for platforms to be able to moderate freely. Reread the law. It explicitly permits ICSs to be moderated as the owner desires according to what it finds to be objectionable.
The host is NOT the publisher, it's mere machinery. Section 230 does not / cannot intend that network hosts gain arbitrary control over what persons wish to publish.
It explicitly says otherwise. Well, not about network hosts but about ICSs, which are not at all the same thing. Specifically, an ICS platform will hold the published speech on servers owned and/or controlled by the platform holder. Network hosts don’t actually retain the speech; speech merely passes through conduits controlled by the network host.
WHY would The Public authorize control over our speech? That'd be STUPID. -- Surely that's why your assertions seem logical to YOU.
“The Public” (i.e. the government) often does stupid things. Furthermore, this isn’t authorizing control over your speech that you didn’t already hand over. By putting it on a privately owned server you don’t own, you have ceded control over that speech. By agreeing to a site’s TOS that authorizes the site to moderate what appears on it, you have ceded control over your speech on that site.
In American Law, The Public is ALWAYS to be the beneficiary.
While that’s ostensibly the goal, this is demonstrably false. See qualified immunity and DMCA §1201. Furthermore, as we see it, this does benefit the public by allowing sites to moderate as they wish, so if you want a family-friendly site, that can be done.
We allow corporations to exist solely to SERVE us. Corporations are legal fictions. They are not even allowed to exist before agree to OUR terms.
And none of those terms include not having property rights or the right to not host speech it doesn’t want to.
Persons will be arrested if try to operate in The Public's marketplaces without permission.
That applies to both corporations and human persons. Even if you’re self-employed and don’t have a corporation, you still need the same licenses to do business as any corporation would.
Corporations are SUBJECTS to a panoply of commercial law which does not apply to persons.
Not really. Persons in the commercial sphere still have to obey the same laws with or without a corporation involved. Theoretically, it would also work for competition laws or anti-trust laws. Other than the laws governing creating, buying, selling, suing, filing a case on behalf of, or liquidating a corporation, there aren’t really any laws that specifically govern corporations that wouldn’t apply to human persons. That said, technically corporations can’t be criminally charged under any law; only human persons can.
Re: Re: You're using this for straw man! YOU agree with a key po
That Biden is problematic doesn’t mean that he wasn’t the best of the available viable options. It’s not like Trump wasn’t also keen on repealing §230.
Uh, the holder can profit from the work by, y'know, selling the work. After several years, you’ve gotten all the profit you’re likely to ever see from that particular work, anyways. I don’t see why one has to sell the copyright to profit from the work. I also don’t see why the value of a copyright to someone other than the author matters to the purpose of copyright. And as for control, that’s not what copyright is for; that’s just a way to help the copyright holders profit by giving them a temporary monopoly. And helping copyright holders profit is itself merely a means to the end of encouraging authors/artists to create new works. There’s also a balance to be struck, as too much control would actually reduce the amount of new works; most arts take inspiration from existing works, after all.
And there are lots of people who profit without using copyright. For example, FOSS, Creative Commons, musicians who put their tracks up for free downloads, etc. Many find unique ways to profit from their works where the profit doesn’t come from selling the works directly or selling the copyright or licensing.
I believe that copyright should attach automatically upon being set in a fixed medium for a set number of years, with an application to extend it by a decade or so periodically up to the life of the author or, say, 50 years beyond the initial period, whichever is longer (but only if new copies are made available periodically), and a separate copyright for derivative works that works similarly but doesn’t last as long (max of 25 years beyond the initial period with a shorter initial period? More periodic applications?) (still requires period releases of new derivative works). (This copyright for derivative works does not include moving to a new medium or updated editions, which will be part of the base copyright, but rather sequels, prequels, interquels, spin-offs, AUs, and crossovers. Also, each derivative work will get its own base copyright, but not its own derivative copyright outside of crossovers.) I believe that should be long enough to get sufficient profits from the initial product and allow a series to be made without the issue of zombie artists. Plus, by requiring periodic applications to maintain copyright, the issue of orphan works is taken care of. Most importantly, it directly encourages the production of new works by requiring new copies of the copyrighted work to be made available to the public to retain the base copyright and new derivative works to be made in order to maintain the derivative copyright. I really think the right to make copies of the original, update it, and transpose it into a new medium should be made separate from the right to make other derivative works, and I don’t believe copyright should extend beyond the life of the author unless that period is really short.
Re: MY UPDATE: 1) still no video of guns pointed at kids
Oh yeah, regarding 2, do we know that Comcast gave them the residential info for that IP address? Because otherwise, the IP address isn’t going to guarantee that Jones was the one who did it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's "clear"? You ask WHY several time
Actually, he released the information to American and international journalists like The Guardian before going to China or Russia, and the only reason he’s still in Russia is because we essentially trapped him there.
More importantly to my original point, Snowden was in opposition to the Obama administration, which was not Republican, and yet Techdirt supported Snowden rather than the administration. This runs counter to your statement:
When you see opposition to any "Republican", they're automatically saints.
I was using Snowden as a counterexample. Whether or not you believe that he was actually whistleblower, Techdirt does and treated him as such, and their articles are by-and-large supportive of his efforts, but he was opposing Democrats, not Republicans. The same goes for Jones in this article except that the leader of the government she was working for previously happens to be a Republican. You may believe that she did something wrong, but the reason Techdirt supports her isn’t because she opposed a Republican but because she is (at least ostensibly) a whistleblower. There may be an anti-authority or pro-whistleblower bias here, but not an anti-Republican bias.
Do you want more? There have been a bunch of articles opposing Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, and other Democrats on this site. (Drone strikes, the TPP, the CASE Act, anti-§230, weak reasons to break up Big Tech, etc.) In fact, generally the attitude towards Democrats has only been slightly more positive than Republicans, and only because fewer Democrats actively make themselves look foolish, more Democrats do positive things more often (like Wyden), and most faults among Democrats are present at least as much in Republicans (e.g. opposition to §230, not understanding technology, copyright maximalism, and corruption). Also, Trump and Bill Barr.
Re: Re: It's rational people not stampeded by MINOR virus.
The actual death rate is well below ONE HALF PERCENT. And that only if old and/or have "co-morbidities".
Actually, the death rate is closer to 2% when ignoring age and preexisting conditions. You also ignore the fact that survivors may end up with permanent adverse effects from the virus. Furthermore, if no control measures are taken, pretty much everyone is going to get it because it’s so contagious.
This unprecedented control of ordinary daily activities over a mere flu-like virus should alarm the hell out of you.
Considering the death toll of the Spanish flu, which was less than the death toll of COVID, and how easily COVID spreads, I’m more alarmed that nothing was done to contain the Spanish flu and the disregard for basic safety measures during this pandemic than I am about the amount of control used to contain this virus, which is worse than the flu by every measure.
Be among the first to test the vaccine. I'll be bravely forgoing it so that the younger and more deserving can have first shot, as it were.
Considering the fact that, as you noted, the likelihood of death from COVID-19 increases with age, why would you want the younger to get first dibs? Unless you recognize that there’s more danger from COVID than just the possibility of death.
Re: MY UPDATE: 1) still no video of guns pointed at kids
1) is to be expected at this point.
2) is a fair point, but I haven’t actually seen the evidence.
3) is true, but also true for every current or former employee because of their lax security standards.
4) I don’t know, but can somewhat concede.
5) is highly questionable and also irrelevant.
6) is saying that she thinks honest analysis goes above politics, which I think is not a bad thing.
7) is not actually proof of anything other than the fact that many activists think that she’s being treated unjustly, not that she herself is an activist.
Dude, we saw that multiple times. There’s no pattern because algorithms are finicky. Stop spamming and just wait. If you send the same thing thirty times, why would they allow the thirtieth time but not the first twenty-nine?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are flat LYING about the cause!
You clearly don’t understand what it means to be private under the law and a publisher under §230. For the record, no editing of your comments is taking place.
So what? None of that suggests any danger from 5G. In particular, the power requirements are irrelevant as they say nothing about the intensity of the beams. The higher power requirements are a direct result of using higher frequencies. At these frequencies, you’d need much higher intensities to experience any health effects at all.
Let’s put it this way: the visible light and infrared light from the Sun is far more dangerous than 5G. It has both higher intensity and higher frequency.
Re: Report finds microwave energy likely made US diplomats ill
To replicate those effects would require directed, pulsed, high intensity radiation. 5G communications are nowhere close to that. And it’s not like Cuba has 5G towers, anyways. Also, only part of 5G is in the microwave spectrum, and only part of the microwave spectrum is within 5G, so stop pretending the two are equivalent.
Basically, this study is a complete non sequitur. It’s also not terribly surprising given that microwave weapons and their effects have been well known for quite some time. It just has nothing to do with 5G.
On the post: Biden's Top Tech Advisor Trots Out Dangerous Ideas For 'Reforming' Section 230
Re: Try this another way, no name new subject line
I’d like to see your calculations, because I actually expected this to happen given how many Democrats (who took COVID seriously) and few Republicans (many of whom did not) voted by mail, and mail-in ballots have always leaned heavily to the left even during normal election. Then there’s the fact that improbable things happen all the time, and elections aren’t random at all, making computing specific probabilities like this about an election’s results—especially after the fact—quite problematic and highly inaccurate.
For an illustration of how dumb this logic is, imagine a deck of cards containing numbers from one to one quadrillion. I draw one of them. Regardless of which number I drew, the probability that I would draw that specific card is guaranteed to be one in a quadrillion. For something easier to picture, take an ordinary 52-card deck and draw five cards. Again, no matter what five cards I get, the chances of me getting that specific combination of cards is astronomically low.
Do you see the problem?
On the post: Biden's Top Tech Advisor Trots Out Dangerous Ideas For 'Reforming' Section 230
Re: Oh, YES: corporations CAN violate your First Amendment Right
No, private corporations cannot violate your First Amendment Rights unless they specifically occupy one of the spaces (like holding elections to public office) traditionally and exclusively occupied by the government. (This exception is extremely narrow as made clear in a number of Supreme Court cases, including a very recent one.)
Regardless of his wishes, the fact is that §230, private property rights, and the 1A do allow corporations to control speech on platforms that they own. He has also explicitly stated a number of times that it’s not just §230. You even quote him saying that.
This is true. That’s also what the law says. Platform holders are authorized to control speech on their platforms regardless of whether the speech is constitutionally protected. You have not provided any counter-evidence to convince anyone otherwise.
The fact that he agrees with the law as is doesn’t change the fact that the law says what he says it does. And yes, that is what the law says. That Masnick is okay with that doesn’t change that.
Nope. Masnick has expressly said he wishes platforms went more open, and he is all for having more competition in this space. However, he is against the government dictating any of that. Furthermore, the 1A doesn’t guarantee you an audience of a certain size or even an audience at all.
No, he claims that these aren’t publicly owned forums but publicly accessible and privately owned forums run by legal persons (who happen to be corporations in these cases) who have the constitutional 1A right and fundamental property right to host or choose not to host any user’s 1A free speech on their privately owned forum at their discretion. Furthermore, this right is further protected by §230.
On the post: Biden's Top Tech Advisor Trots Out Dangerous Ideas For 'Reforming' Section 230
Re: Except... book publisher is not a host or conduit for books.
Here’s the thing: generally speaking, you can’t sue a bookstore or library for refusing to stock a particular book(s) that is/are sent to them. In particular, bookstores all have their own standards as to which books the will or won’t stock. Unless there’s something anticompetitive about it (refusing to sell books published by a rival store or something while also selling books it publishes), there’s no law that forces bookstores to stock certain books.
In fact, I don’t think you understand how bookstores work. Generally, they aren’t just given books to sell. They buy them (in bulk).
Similarly, libraries aren’t exactly required to lend out any books donated to them. Most often will, but that’s purely a philosophical thing (most libraries are very anti-censorship and are willing to lend out even the Mein Kampf or a dirty porn book so long as it isn’t illegal. It’s not a legal issue (outside of government-run libraries, but that’s because they’re publicly owned); privately owned libraries can choose which of the books or other media in their collection they will offer to lend visitors, but there’s no legal requirement that they have to do so for every book they have.
So no, bookstores and libraries don’t legally have to “host any books […] that come in no matter [] the origin or [] content UNLESS the content is illegal (CP, etc.)”. Outside of publicly owned libraries (which are bound by the 1A as government agencies), they have full legal discretion over what books or other media to make available to the public on their shelves.
On the post: Biden's Top Tech Advisor Trots Out Dangerous Ideas For 'Reforming' Section 230
Re: Section 230 immunizes hosting: it doesn't authorize censorin
And they get to decide whether the user may continue to use that machinery. If I get kicked out of a restaurant for saying something the owners don’t like, I have no legal recourse as long as I still get what I paid for: the food.
Actually, you might want to reread those TOS’s. You’ll find that they do include explicit provisions that allow the ones running the platform to remove content or kick off users for any number of reasons, even if everything the user did was perfectly legal and lawful.
That’s only one part. The other part is for platforms to be able to moderate freely. Reread the law. It explicitly permits ICSs to be moderated as the owner desires according to what it finds to be objectionable.
It explicitly says otherwise. Well, not about network hosts but about ICSs, which are not at all the same thing. Specifically, an ICS platform will hold the published speech on servers owned and/or controlled by the platform holder. Network hosts don’t actually retain the speech; speech merely passes through conduits controlled by the network host.
“The Public” (i.e. the government) often does stupid things. Furthermore, this isn’t authorizing control over your speech that you didn’t already hand over. By putting it on a privately owned server you don’t own, you have ceded control over that speech. By agreeing to a site’s TOS that authorizes the site to moderate what appears on it, you have ceded control over your speech on that site.
While that’s ostensibly the goal, this is demonstrably false. See qualified immunity and DMCA §1201. Furthermore, as we see it, this does benefit the public by allowing sites to moderate as they wish, so if you want a family-friendly site, that can be done.
And none of those terms include not having property rights or the right to not host speech it doesn’t want to.
That applies to both corporations and human persons. Even if you’re self-employed and don’t have a corporation, you still need the same licenses to do business as any corporation would.
Not really. Persons in the commercial sphere still have to obey the same laws with or without a corporation involved. Theoretically, it would also work for competition laws or anti-trust laws. Other than the laws governing creating, buying, selling, suing, filing a case on behalf of, or liquidating a corporation, there aren’t really any laws that specifically govern corporations that wouldn’t apply to human persons. That said, technically corporations can’t be criminally charged under any law; only human persons can.
On the post: Biden's Top Tech Advisor Trots Out Dangerous Ideas For 'Reforming' Section 230
Re: Re: You're using this for straw man! YOU agree with a key po
That Biden is problematic doesn’t mean that he wasn’t the best of the available viable options. It’s not like Trump wasn’t also keen on repealing §230.
On the post: Biden's Top Tech Advisor Trots Out Dangerous Ideas For 'Reforming' Section 230
Re: You're using this for straw man! YOU agree with a key point:
We’ve been over this. That’s what the law is. And those 1A rights already exist. Plus, a lot of it is just getting the right party in court.
On the post: Reform The DMCA? OK, But Only If It's Done Really, Really Carefully
Re:
Uh, the holder can profit from the work by, y'know, selling the work. After several years, you’ve gotten all the profit you’re likely to ever see from that particular work, anyways. I don’t see why one has to sell the copyright to profit from the work. I also don’t see why the value of a copyright to someone other than the author matters to the purpose of copyright. And as for control, that’s not what copyright is for; that’s just a way to help the copyright holders profit by giving them a temporary monopoly. And helping copyright holders profit is itself merely a means to the end of encouraging authors/artists to create new works. There’s also a balance to be struck, as too much control would actually reduce the amount of new works; most arts take inspiration from existing works, after all.
And there are lots of people who profit without using copyright. For example, FOSS, Creative Commons, musicians who put their tracks up for free downloads, etc. Many find unique ways to profit from their works where the profit doesn’t come from selling the works directly or selling the copyright or licensing.
I believe that copyright should attach automatically upon being set in a fixed medium for a set number of years, with an application to extend it by a decade or so periodically up to the life of the author or, say, 50 years beyond the initial period, whichever is longer (but only if new copies are made available periodically), and a separate copyright for derivative works that works similarly but doesn’t last as long (max of 25 years beyond the initial period with a shorter initial period? More periodic applications?) (still requires period releases of new derivative works). (This copyright for derivative works does not include moving to a new medium or updated editions, which will be part of the base copyright, but rather sequels, prequels, interquels, spin-offs, AUs, and crossovers. Also, each derivative work will get its own base copyright, but not its own derivative copyright outside of crossovers.) I believe that should be long enough to get sufficient profits from the initial product and allow a series to be made without the issue of zombie artists. Plus, by requiring periodic applications to maintain copyright, the issue of orphan works is taken care of. Most importantly, it directly encourages the production of new works by requiring new copies of the copyrighted work to be made available to the public to retain the base copyright and new derivative works to be made in order to maintain the derivative copyright. I really think the right to make copies of the original, update it, and transpose it into a new medium should be made separate from the right to make other derivative works, and I don’t believe copyright should extend beyond the life of the author unless that period is really short.
On the post: Florida State Police Raid Home Of COVID Whistleblower, Point Guns At Her & Her Family, Seize All Her Computer Equipment
Re: MY UPDATE: 1) still no video of guns pointed at kids
Oh yeah, regarding 2, do we know that Comcast gave them the residential info for that IP address? Because otherwise, the IP address isn’t going to guarantee that Jones was the one who did it.
On the post: Florida State Police Raid Home Of COVID Whistleblower, Point Guns At Her & Her Family, Seize All Her Computer Equipment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's "clear"? You ask WHY several time
Actually, he released the information to American and international journalists like The Guardian before going to China or Russia, and the only reason he’s still in Russia is because we essentially trapped him there.
More importantly to my original point, Snowden was in opposition to the Obama administration, which was not Republican, and yet Techdirt supported Snowden rather than the administration. This runs counter to your statement:
I was using Snowden as a counterexample. Whether or not you believe that he was actually whistleblower, Techdirt does and treated him as such, and their articles are by-and-large supportive of his efforts, but he was opposing Democrats, not Republicans. The same goes for Jones in this article except that the leader of the government she was working for previously happens to be a Republican. You may believe that she did something wrong, but the reason Techdirt supports her isn’t because she opposed a Republican but because she is (at least ostensibly) a whistleblower. There may be an anti-authority or pro-whistleblower bias here, but not an anti-Republican bias.
Do you want more? There have been a bunch of articles opposing Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, and other Democrats on this site. (Drone strikes, the TPP, the CASE Act, anti-§230, weak reasons to break up Big Tech, etc.) In fact, generally the attitude towards Democrats has only been slightly more positive than Republicans, and only because fewer Democrats actively make themselves look foolish, more Democrats do positive things more often (like Wyden), and most faults among Democrats are present at least as much in Republicans (e.g. opposition to §230, not understanding technology, copyright maximalism, and corruption). Also, Trump and Bill Barr.
On the post: Florida State Police Raid Home Of COVID Whistleblower, Point Guns At Her & Her Family, Seize All Her Computer Equipment
Re: Re: It's rational people not stampeded by MINOR virus.
Actually, the death rate is closer to 2% when ignoring age and preexisting conditions. You also ignore the fact that survivors may end up with permanent adverse effects from the virus. Furthermore, if no control measures are taken, pretty much everyone is going to get it because it’s so contagious.
Considering the death toll of the Spanish flu, which was less than the death toll of COVID, and how easily COVID spreads, I’m more alarmed that nothing was done to contain the Spanish flu and the disregard for basic safety measures during this pandemic than I am about the amount of control used to contain this virus, which is worse than the flu by every measure.
Considering the fact that, as you noted, the likelihood of death from COVID-19 increases with age, why would you want the younger to get first dibs? Unless you recognize that there’s more danger from COVID than just the possibility of death.
On the post: Florida State Police Raid Home Of COVID Whistleblower, Point Guns At Her & Her Family, Seize All Her Computer Equipment
Re: MY UPDATE: 1) still no video of guns pointed at kids
Also, a big question is whether or not this was proportional.
On the post: Florida State Police Raid Home Of COVID Whistleblower, Point Guns At Her & Her Family, Seize All Her Computer Equipment
Re: MY UPDATE: 1) still no video of guns pointed at kids
1) is to be expected at this point.
2) is a fair point, but I haven’t actually seen the evidence.
3) is true, but also true for every current or former employee because of their lax security standards.
4) I don’t know, but can somewhat concede.
5) is highly questionable and also irrelevant.
6) is saying that she thinks honest analysis goes above politics, which I think is not a bad thing.
7) is not actually proof of anything other than the fact that many activists think that she’s being treated unjustly, not that she herself is an activist.
On the post: Provision Added To Defense Bill That Would Make Federal Officers Policing Protests Identify Themselves
Re: Re: Re: You are flat LYING about the cause!
Dude, we saw that multiple times. There’s no pattern because algorithms are finicky. Stop spamming and just wait. If you send the same thing thirty times, why would they allow the thirtieth time but not the first twenty-nine?
On the post: Provision Added To Defense Bill That Would Make Federal Officers Policing Protests Identify Themselves
Re: innocuous leader
And yet here you are.
On the post: Provision Added To Defense Bill That Would Make Federal Officers Policing Protests Identify Themselves
Re: You are flat LYING about the cause!
Uh, dude, I can’t stop hearing Trump’s messages they’re all over the news and in my email inbox. He’s definitely not being silenced or censored.
On the post: Provision Added To Defense Bill That Would Make Federal Officers Policing Protests Identify Themselves
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are flat LYING about the cause!
You clearly don’t understand what it means to be private under the law and a publisher under §230. For the record, no editing of your comments is taking place.
On the post: Trump Makes It Official: He's Going To Pull Military Funding, Because Congress Won't Kill The Open Internet
Re:
No. But even if true, how would that be relevant?
On the post: Georgia Court Streams Ridiculous 'Kraken' Lawsuit Hearing On YouTube; Then Tells People They Can't Repost Recordings
Re: Ridiculous
Did you pay attention to the ruling?
On the post: Somehow, 5G Paranoia Is Only Getting Dumber
Re: You've LOST the "Tech", now are just DIRT.
So what? None of that suggests any danger from 5G. In particular, the power requirements are irrelevant as they say nothing about the intensity of the beams. The higher power requirements are a direct result of using higher frequencies. At these frequencies, you’d need much higher intensities to experience any health effects at all.
Let’s put it this way: the visible light and infrared light from the Sun is far more dangerous than 5G. It has both higher intensity and higher frequency.
On the post: Somehow, 5G Paranoia Is Only Getting Dumber
Re: Report finds microwave energy likely made US diplomats ill
To replicate those effects would require directed, pulsed, high intensity radiation. 5G communications are nowhere close to that. And it’s not like Cuba has 5G towers, anyways. Also, only part of 5G is in the microwave spectrum, and only part of the microwave spectrum is within 5G, so stop pretending the two are equivalent.
Basically, this study is a complete non sequitur. It’s also not terribly surprising given that microwave weapons and their effects have been well known for quite some time. It just has nothing to do with 5G.
Next >>