Re: Re: Actually, the Memory Hole is already implemented.
Well, if they were presented in a court of law, where all filings are of public record, media censorship wouldn’t matter. What, do you think we can’t be bothered to read the court filings? Think again. None of the relevant court cases are under seal, so it’s not being suppressed. Again, if there was any truth to the allegations of fraud or electoral manipulations, we would have seen some evidence in the court filings or heard about it from the Trump DOJ. And yet we have seen nothing. Or do you think that Trump-appointed judges and William Barr have an anti-Trump bias?
So no, we’re not being deliberately blind to the evidence, nor is it being suppressed. Your side refuses to present any where it actually matters: to investigators or in a court of law. The only reason I can think of for this is that to present any remotely persuasive evidence of fraud would mean perjury or lying to federal officers, both of which are crimes and violate legal ethics.
Maybe you’re projecting here with C, and the idea that Biden could possibly beat Trump in a fair election would upset all your notions? Perhaps you’re the one who should recheck their biases.
Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR
In particular, [Stone] and Maz advocate that corporations have TOTAL ARBITRARY CONTROL over what "natural" persons can Publish on mere HOSTS.
As long as those corporations own or are those hosts, then yes. They own those platforms the same way that McDonald’s owns a number of restaurants and Amazon owns The Washington Post. As such, they get to decide what does or doesn’t get said/published there, even if those decisions are completely arbitrary. That’s their legal right as private property owners.
[Stone] and Maz claim that the First Amendment, the essential guarantor to persons, actually licenses corporations to control all speech on the very Section 230 sites […]
Under the law, corporations are also persons. And the 1A guarantees the right to say/publish what you want, choose not to say/publish what you want, remove/retract anything you’ve previously published from your platform, associate with whomever you want, or not associate with whomever you want without the government coming in and stopping it. It doesn’t trump private-property rights, which you admit corporations have, and corporations—as legal persons—also have those rights.
That’s why the Washington Post can choose to publish, not publish, or retract anything it wants from its newspaper and/or website without fear of government interference (1A free speech and property rights). That’s why McDonald’s can kick you out for swearing or pretty much any other reason (outside of immutable traits) that they want without fear of legal repercussions (1A free association and property rights).
[…] the very Section 230 sites that are supposed to be "Free Speech" outlets for The Public.
First, Twitter and Facebook (along with many other social media sites or similar online platforms) don’t claim to be “Free Speech” sites, nor does §230, private property laws, or the 1A require them to be. And they are only open to the public to the extent Twitter and Facebook each want them to be. They are also outlets for other corporations or organizations as well as various governments and government agencies, so they’re not just for “The Public”.
But let’s say they did claim to be “Free Speech” sites. Courts have ruled multiple times that such claims are “mere puffery” and thus cannot form the basis of a claim of any sort, including breach of contract. Otherwise, Parler—which does claim to be a free speech site—would be in trouble for banning trolls and spammers (are those not also free speech?).
Furthermore, what you’re trying to do is force all online platforms to be “Free Speech” sites in the way that you mean even if they very much don’t want to be and/or explicitly disclaim (like a family-friendly social media site, pro-LGBTQ platform, or a pro-Trump message board). The size is irrelevant. Do you believe that, if an explicitly and obviously biased or heavily moderated platform that doesn’t claim to be pro-free speech (like the ones I mentioned earlier) amasses a sufficiently large audience, then they should have to host all legal speech even if they don’t want to? Why should every online platform (or every sufficiently large online platform) have to be a “free speech” platform? Again, neither §230 nor the 1A require any such thing.
Also, every site that provides some sort of interactive service to users is a “Section 230” site, and §230 also protects users from liability.
You have inverted the purpose of the First Amendment, […]
The purpose of the 1A is to prevent government interference with or retribution against speech, the press, religion, and association by anyone, to allow persons (natural or not) the right to assemble, protest peacefully, and petition the government without fear of government interference or retribution, and to prevent the establishment of any state religion and otherwise prevent the mixing of church and state. That includes not only keeping the government from preventing speech or association (along with religion, peaceful protests and assemblies, and petition) but also from forcing speech or association (along with the other stuff) where unwanted. It does not include the right to a specific platform irrespective of that platform’s wishes, nor does it include a guarantee to an audience (in general or of a specific size or in particular).
The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled in Citizens United (among other cases) that corporations have the same 1A rights to free speech as any US citizen. It has also explicitly ruled that online platforms like Facebook or Twitter are not the government or state actors or an equivalent for the purposes of the First Amendment, meaning that the 1A rights of other persons (“natural” or not) don’t restrain platform holders from moderating others’ free speech from their online platforms.
So no, this isn’t a case of Stephen or Masnick “inverting the purpose of the First Amendment”; they’re just explaining what the law is under current US jurisprudence. Whether you like it or not does not change what the law actually does. You may not like that corporations have 1A rights, but they do. You may not like that corporations aren’t restricted by the 1A, but they aren’t. You may not like that being private private-property owners entitle corporations arbitrary control over what speech does or does not get to be published and/or remain on their privately-owned platforms or other websites, but it does. You may not like the way that platform holders exercise their rights over speech on and/or users of their platforms (perhaps justifiably), but that doesn’t change the fact that they have those rights under the 1A and as the private owners of those platforms.
[…] and then accuse ME of contradiction?
Well, first of all, what they have been doing has neither been inverting the purpose of the 1A nor involved any sort of contradictory beliefs or claims. Even if they had been “inverting the purpose” of the 1A, that wouldn’t necessarily involve holding contradictory beliefs or claims. Either way, they have been consistent.
Second, even if that had been contradictory, that doesn’t mean you’re not contradicting yourself, and thus you are not absolved of having to explain your way out of the apparent contradiction in your beliefs. For one thing, the contradiction they’re alleging is in your claims stands with or without the 1A being involved, thus making the contradiction you’re trying to allege is in their claims immaterial to the apparent contradiction in your claims.
Oh, also the right to sue/be sued or file for bankruptcy or enter into contracts or have an attorney of their choosing. Basically, a lot more than just the right to own property.
But let’s just stick with property rights for a second. The 1A doesn’t trump private-property rights, which includes the right to exclude people from your property for what they do or say. Additionally, the right to own property is meaningless if there is no right to control that property. In other words, the right to own property—which you explicitly say corporations have—directly gives them the right to moderate speech on platforms that they own. The 1A right to publish, not publish, or retract something they previously published as well as the 1A right to associate or not associate with someone just strengthens that.
You don’t have the right to come onto my lawn and put whatever signs you want without me taking them down and/or kicking you off of my lawn. Heck, I can kick you off my property for just about any reason. Similarly, you don’t have the right to put a sign in the window of a restaurant you don’t own or run without the owner(s)/manager(s)/employee(s) removing that sign, and they can kick you out for any reason that isn’t based on immutable traits like race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or religion. That, again, is a right all private-property owners have.
The same applies to online platforms. They are technically places that offer public accommodations, so they are bound to treat people equally based on immutable characteristics, but other than that and any restrictions explicitly mentioned in their ToS’s, they have the right to kick people off for any reason and remove from or refuse to publish on their privately owned platforms anything they want without legal repercussions. That is their right not only under the 1A but also as private-property owners. Otherwise, their right to own property is meaningless.
And remember, the 1A only restricts the government or state actors working on behalf of the government from restraining speech or publishing, not private property owners from doing so on or using privately-owned property that they themselves own. And, as we have told you repeatedly, the right to speak doesn’t mean the right to be heard on any platform of your choosing or by any particular audience. As long as you can say it somewhere, and it’s not the government or one of its agents telling you what to say or where to say it, it cannot be censorship, and therefore it cannot be an infringement of the 1A. That’s the difference between moderation and censorship. Moderation says, “You can’t say that here on my private platform,” “You can say that here on my private platform but with some restrictions,” or, “You can’t come here to my private platform to speak anymore.” Censorship says, “You can’t say that anywhere under penalty of law,” “The government says you can’t say that anywhere,” or, “You can’t say that on your own platform or on someone else’s platform that I don’t own.”
So, try again: How can you say that corporations have the right to sue over copyrights they own (as they have the right to own property and the right to sue) but not the right to moderate speech on their (privately owned but publicly accessible) platforms? Also, if corporations don’t have 1A rights to free speech, why are newspapers owned by corporations able to assert 1A rights in a US (federal or state) court of law, both as a plaintiff and as a defendant? The right to free speech does include the right to publish, after all.
That’s actually a very good question. And actually, Rossi could arguably have been suing both as a platform and alleged infringer. Note this:
The MPAA followed the "notice and takedown" procedures detailed in the DMCA and sent several notices to Rossi and Rossi's Internet service provider (ISP) informing them of the asserted infringement. [emphasis added]
Still, one that’s less of a gray area would be nice.
It seems clear that you think that DMCA §512 is essentially the best compromise we can get on that front. Out of curiosity, what’s your opinion on §1201? I’m not seeing where the compromise is there.
Re: Re: 'You get everything, I get nothing' is not 'compromise'
Under current law, they have to take it down unless and until they receive a counternotification from the alleged infringer. And it does treat the alleged infringer as guilty until proven otherwise. After all, the content has to be removed ASAP once a DMCA claim has been made.
I understand where you’re going with this, but I think the balance is far too firmly in the copyright holders’ favor. Give 512(f) more teeth and/or make fair use more important, and then that might be okay.
Other reasons: Case law has made succeeding in a case of §512(f) practically impossible, so few even try. Litigation is espensive and there are too many malicious takedowns to make going after any of them make much of a dent.
You mean creating a better world isn’t a good idea on its own? Let’s say we made the world a better place for no reason other than to make the world better. How terrible.
Seriously, I still don’t see how that’s a bad thing.
Microwaves (though not the 5G kind; they’re at the low end of the microwave spectrum and below) can cause burns at high intensities, but not radiation poisoning. Only ionizing radiation like ultraviolet or higher can cause radiation poisoning. Also, radiation poisoning symptoms are nothing like COVID, nor does it spread the same way. Also, 5G is actually worse at penetrating our skin than 4G or below.
It’s also worth noting that GHz refers to frequency, which is inversely proportionate to wavelength. You don’t measure the amount of 5G radiation in GHz because the amount of GHz in 5G is set by definition to a certain range.
As for AM/FM radio waves or radar causing flus, that doesn’t even make sense and is counter to what we know about what happened back then. For one thing, AM radio predated FM radio, so your history is just plain wrong to begin with.
As for whether 5G works or not, the only ways it’s not working well are that it was overhyped to begin with so couldn’t meet expectations, the available bandwidth in the US for 5G was legally limited, 5G deployment has been limited due to the number of towers needed in higher concentrations due to 5G’s limited range, and current 5G antennas are currently more taxing on current batteries. It actually works fine, just not dramatically better than 4G.
And it’s not the satellites that are 5G. Only towers and the antennas in mobile phones are 5G. Satellites are too far for 5G to make it from the satellites to the towers.
Also, COVID spreads well in the same areas that 5G gets deployed because both are big, crowded cities, where flus spread very well and populations are high and dense enough for 5G to be worth it. COVID also spread well in areas like South Dakota where social distancing wasn’t practiced even though 5G deployment there is still rather spotty.
As for getting a dry cough from the flu, I certainly have, and COVID isn’t like other flus.
You clearly know nothing about radiation, physics, biology, or epidemiology.
On one hand I see he is being labeled as a troll, and then there also seems to be an issue about how he conducts himself in court. I'm not sure where these two issues intersect or if they even do. I'm sure someone here will elaborate.
Liebowitz is called a troll for two reasons. One, the way he conducts himself in and out of court. Two, the fact that he takes far more cases than is reasonable for anyone to be able to handle and with little care as to the legitimacy of those cases. Both of these are supported in the record of his cases, which is discussed in the article.
Regarding the registrations, from my personal experience, they are handled meticulously.
We have a court ruling that explicitly says otherwise.
I'm under the impression that the majority on this thread believe in copyright law, and if so, then what is wrong with pursuing people who steal images? What's wrong with pursuing all of them? It is the only way they will learn.
It’s about how they are pursued, and the amount of money involved. Quite frankly, Liebowitz’s tactics in and out of court are problematic, to say the least, and the amount of money it takes just to settle a copyright case, no matter how small, is outrageous. As for pursuing all of them, that’s unfeasible. There are too many of them.
Look, I feel for you. I really do. I do think you should be paid for your work. However, Liebowitz is not a great attorney. He is constantly being sanctioned, and you may end up having to pay for those sanctions. And that’s the problem. What he’s doing is bad for all parties.
Why? That has nothing to do with the military, and therefore nothing to do with the NDAA. Good policy should be focused. And why should our military suffer because the internet doesn’t have enough regulations? Holding (part of) the government hostage in order to get something controversial through is never good policy.
On the post: Somehow, 5G Paranoia Is Only Getting Dumber
Re: Re: Re:
True. Thanks for pointing that out.
On the post: Georgia Court Streams Ridiculous 'Kraken' Lawsuit Hearing On YouTube; Then Tells People They Can't Repost Recordings
Re: Re: Actually, the Memory Hole is already implemented.
Well, if they were presented in a court of law, where all filings are of public record, media censorship wouldn’t matter. What, do you think we can’t be bothered to read the court filings? Think again. None of the relevant court cases are under seal, so it’s not being suppressed. Again, if there was any truth to the allegations of fraud or electoral manipulations, we would have seen some evidence in the court filings or heard about it from the Trump DOJ. And yet we have seen nothing. Or do you think that Trump-appointed judges and William Barr have an anti-Trump bias?
So no, we’re not being deliberately blind to the evidence, nor is it being suppressed. Your side refuses to present any where it actually matters: to investigators or in a court of law. The only reason I can think of for this is that to present any remotely persuasive evidence of fraud would mean perjury or lying to federal officers, both of which are crimes and violate legal ethics.
Maybe you’re projecting here with C, and the idea that Biden could possibly beat Trump in a fair election would upset all your notions? Perhaps you’re the one who should recheck their biases.
On the post: Florida State Police Raid Home Of COVID Whistleblower, Point Guns At Her & Her Family, Seize All Her Computer Equipment
Re: What's "clear"? You ask WHY several times, give NO facts!
Actually, it’s whistleblowers in general. They also felt the same about Edward Snowden.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill
Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR STAR
As long as those corporations own or are those hosts, then yes. They own those platforms the same way that McDonald’s owns a number of restaurants and Amazon owns The Washington Post. As such, they get to decide what does or doesn’t get said/published there, even if those decisions are completely arbitrary. That’s their legal right as private property owners.
Under the law, corporations are also persons. And the 1A guarantees the right to say/publish what you want, choose not to say/publish what you want, remove/retract anything you’ve previously published from your platform, associate with whomever you want, or not associate with whomever you want without the government coming in and stopping it. It doesn’t trump private-property rights, which you admit corporations have, and corporations—as legal persons—also have those rights.
That’s why the Washington Post can choose to publish, not publish, or retract anything it wants from its newspaper and/or website without fear of government interference (1A free speech and property rights). That’s why McDonald’s can kick you out for swearing or pretty much any other reason (outside of immutable traits) that they want without fear of legal repercussions (1A free association and property rights).
First, Twitter and Facebook (along with many other social media sites or similar online platforms) don’t claim to be “Free Speech” sites, nor does §230, private property laws, or the 1A require them to be. And they are only open to the public to the extent Twitter and Facebook each want them to be. They are also outlets for other corporations or organizations as well as various governments and government agencies, so they’re not just for “The Public”.
But let’s say they did claim to be “Free Speech” sites. Courts have ruled multiple times that such claims are “mere puffery” and thus cannot form the basis of a claim of any sort, including breach of contract. Otherwise, Parler—which does claim to be a free speech site—would be in trouble for banning trolls and spammers (are those not also free speech?).
Furthermore, what you’re trying to do is force all online platforms to be “Free Speech” sites in the way that you mean even if they very much don’t want to be and/or explicitly disclaim (like a family-friendly social media site, pro-LGBTQ platform, or a pro-Trump message board). The size is irrelevant. Do you believe that, if an explicitly and obviously biased or heavily moderated platform that doesn’t claim to be pro-free speech (like the ones I mentioned earlier) amasses a sufficiently large audience, then they should have to host all legal speech even if they don’t want to? Why should every online platform (or every sufficiently large online platform) have to be a “free speech” platform? Again, neither §230 nor the 1A require any such thing.
Also, every site that provides some sort of interactive service to users is a “Section 230” site, and §230 also protects users from liability.
The purpose of the 1A is to prevent government interference with or retribution against speech, the press, religion, and association by anyone, to allow persons (natural or not) the right to assemble, protest peacefully, and petition the government without fear of government interference or retribution, and to prevent the establishment of any state religion and otherwise prevent the mixing of church and state. That includes not only keeping the government from preventing speech or association (along with religion, peaceful protests and assemblies, and petition) but also from forcing speech or association (along with the other stuff) where unwanted. It does not include the right to a specific platform irrespective of that platform’s wishes, nor does it include a guarantee to an audience (in general or of a specific size or in particular).
The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled in Citizens United (among other cases) that corporations have the same 1A rights to free speech as any US citizen. It has also explicitly ruled that online platforms like Facebook or Twitter are not the government or state actors or an equivalent for the purposes of the First Amendment, meaning that the 1A rights of other persons (“natural” or not) don’t restrain platform holders from moderating others’ free speech from their online platforms.
So no, this isn’t a case of Stephen or Masnick “inverting the purpose of the First Amendment”; they’re just explaining what the law is under current US jurisprudence. Whether you like it or not does not change what the law actually does. You may not like that corporations have 1A rights, but they do. You may not like that corporations aren’t restricted by the 1A, but they aren’t. You may not like that being private private-property owners entitle corporations arbitrary control over what speech does or does not get to be published and/or remain on their privately-owned platforms or other websites, but it does. You may not like the way that platform holders exercise their rights over speech on and/or users of their platforms (perhaps justifiably), but that doesn’t change the fact that they have those rights under the 1A and as the private owners of those platforms.
Well, first of all, what they have been doing has neither been inverting the purpose of the 1A nor involved any sort of contradictory beliefs or claims. Even if they had been “inverting the purpose” of the 1A, that wouldn’t necessarily involve holding contradictory beliefs or claims. Either way, they have been consistent.
Second, even if that had been contradictory, that doesn’t mean you’re not contradicting yourself, and thus you are not absolved of having to explain your way out of the apparent contradiction in your beliefs. For one thing, the contradiction they’re alleging is in your claims stands with or without the 1A being involved, thus making the contradiction you’re trying to allege is in their claims immaterial to the apparent contradiction in your claims.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill
Re: Re: RE: pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Change OR
Oh, also the right to sue/be sued or file for bankruptcy or enter into contracts or have an attorney of their choosing. Basically, a lot more than just the right to own property.
But let’s just stick with property rights for a second. The 1A doesn’t trump private-property rights, which includes the right to exclude people from your property for what they do or say. Additionally, the right to own property is meaningless if there is no right to control that property. In other words, the right to own property—which you explicitly say corporations have—directly gives them the right to moderate speech on platforms that they own. The 1A right to publish, not publish, or retract something they previously published as well as the 1A right to associate or not associate with someone just strengthens that.
You don’t have the right to come onto my lawn and put whatever signs you want without me taking them down and/or kicking you off of my lawn. Heck, I can kick you off my property for just about any reason. Similarly, you don’t have the right to put a sign in the window of a restaurant you don’t own or run without the owner(s)/manager(s)/employee(s) removing that sign, and they can kick you out for any reason that isn’t based on immutable traits like race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or religion. That, again, is a right all private-property owners have.
The same applies to online platforms. They are technically places that offer public accommodations, so they are bound to treat people equally based on immutable characteristics, but other than that and any restrictions explicitly mentioned in their ToS’s, they have the right to kick people off for any reason and remove from or refuse to publish on their privately owned platforms anything they want without legal repercussions. That is their right not only under the 1A but also as private-property owners. Otherwise, their right to own property is meaningless.
And remember, the 1A only restricts the government or state actors working on behalf of the government from restraining speech or publishing, not private property owners from doing so on or using privately-owned property that they themselves own. And, as we have told you repeatedly, the right to speak doesn’t mean the right to be heard on any platform of your choosing or by any particular audience. As long as you can say it somewhere, and it’s not the government or one of its agents telling you what to say or where to say it, it cannot be censorship, and therefore it cannot be an infringement of the 1A. That’s the difference between moderation and censorship. Moderation says, “You can’t say that here on my private platform,” “You can say that here on my private platform but with some restrictions,” or, “You can’t come here to my private platform to speak anymore.” Censorship says, “You can’t say that anywhere under penalty of law,” “The government says you can’t say that anywhere,” or, “You can’t say that on your own platform or on someone else’s platform that I don’t own.”
So, try again: How can you say that corporations have the right to sue over copyrights they own (as they have the right to own property and the right to sue) but not the right to moderate speech on their (privately owned but publicly accessible) platforms? Also, if corporations don’t have 1A rights to free speech, why are newspapers owned by corporations able to assert 1A rights in a US (federal or state) court of law, both as a plaintiff and as a defendant? The right to free speech does include the right to publish, after all.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The real problem is that he effectively runs unopposed.
On the post: Reform The DMCA? OK, But Only If It's Done Really, Really Carefully
Re: Re: 512(f) [was Re: Compromise]
That’s actually a very good question. And actually, Rossi could arguably have been suing both as a platform and alleged infringer. Note this:
Still, one that’s less of a gray area would be nice.
On the post: Reform The DMCA? OK, But Only If It's Done Really, Really Carefully
§1201
It seems clear that you think that DMCA §512 is essentially the best compromise we can get on that front. Out of curiosity, what’s your opinion on §1201? I’m not seeing where the compromise is there.
On the post: Reform The DMCA? OK, But Only If It's Done Really, Really Carefully
Re: Re: 'You get everything, I get nothing' is not 'compromise'
Under current law, they have to take it down unless and until they receive a counternotification from the alleged infringer. And it does treat the alleged infringer as guilty until proven otherwise. After all, the content has to be removed ASAP once a DMCA claim has been made.
I understand where you’re going with this, but I think the balance is far too firmly in the copyright holders’ favor. Give 512(f) more teeth and/or make fair use more important, and then that might be okay.
On the post: Reform The DMCA? OK, But Only If It's Done Really, Really Carefully
Re: Re: 512(f) [was Re: Compromise]
Other reasons: Case law has made succeeding in a case of §512(f) practically impossible, so few even try. Litigation is espensive and there are too many malicious takedowns to make going after any of them make much of a dent.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Ch
You mean creating a better world isn’t a good idea on its own? Let’s say we made the world a better place for no reason other than to make the world better. How terrible.
Seriously, I still don’t see how that’s a bad thing.
On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him
Re: Re: And again, MOST of CDA was thrown out for un-Constitutio
Similarly, not punishing the owner of a billboard for deciding to take down certain ads is hardly unprecedented, either.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Sells Out The Public: Agrees To Put Massive Copyright Reform In 'Must Pass' Spending Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, pish, tosh, Maz! Biden says gimme Climate Ch
It has never changed this rapidly.
On the post: Somehow, 5G Paranoia Is Only Getting Dumber
Re:
Microwaves (though not the 5G kind; they’re at the low end of the microwave spectrum and below) can cause burns at high intensities, but not radiation poisoning. Only ionizing radiation like ultraviolet or higher can cause radiation poisoning. Also, radiation poisoning symptoms are nothing like COVID, nor does it spread the same way. Also, 5G is actually worse at penetrating our skin than 4G or below.
It’s also worth noting that GHz refers to frequency, which is inversely proportionate to wavelength. You don’t measure the amount of 5G radiation in GHz because the amount of GHz in 5G is set by definition to a certain range.
As for AM/FM radio waves or radar causing flus, that doesn’t even make sense and is counter to what we know about what happened back then. For one thing, AM radio predated FM radio, so your history is just plain wrong to begin with.
As for whether 5G works or not, the only ways it’s not working well are that it was overhyped to begin with so couldn’t meet expectations, the available bandwidth in the US for 5G was legally limited, 5G deployment has been limited due to the number of towers needed in higher concentrations due to 5G’s limited range, and current 5G antennas are currently more taxing on current batteries. It actually works fine, just not dramatically better than 4G.
And it’s not the satellites that are 5G. Only towers and the antennas in mobile phones are 5G. Satellites are too far for 5G to make it from the satellites to the towers.
Also, COVID spreads well in the same areas that 5G gets deployed because both are big, crowded cities, where flus spread very well and populations are high and dense enough for 5G to be worth it. COVID also spread well in areas like South Dakota where social distancing wasn’t practiced even though 5G deployment there is still rather spotty.
As for getting a dry cough from the flu, I certainly have, and COVID isn’t like other flus.
You clearly know nothing about radiation, physics, biology, or epidemiology.
On the post: White House Still Pushing To Slip Section 230 Repeal Into 'Must Pass' Military Spending Bill
Re: Good News
Compelled speech is equally un-American.
On the post: White House Still Pushing To Slip Section 230 Repeal Into 'Must Pass' Military Spending Bill
Re: Re: Good News
It also applies to and protects every user or every site.
On the post: World's Worst Copyright Troll, Richard Liebowitz, Suspended From Practicing Law
Re: Hey, I'm a client of Richard's and
Liebowitz is called a troll for two reasons. One, the way he conducts himself in and out of court. Two, the fact that he takes far more cases than is reasonable for anyone to be able to handle and with little care as to the legitimacy of those cases. Both of these are supported in the record of his cases, which is discussed in the article.
We have a court ruling that explicitly says otherwise.
It’s about how they are pursued, and the amount of money involved. Quite frankly, Liebowitz’s tactics in and out of court are problematic, to say the least, and the amount of money it takes just to settle a copyright case, no matter how small, is outrageous. As for pursuing all of them, that’s unfeasible. There are too many of them.
Look, I feel for you. I really do. I do think you should be paid for your work. However, Liebowitz is not a great attorney. He is constantly being sanctioned, and you may end up having to pay for those sanctions. And that’s the problem. What he’s doing is bad for all parties.
On the post: World's Worst Copyright Troll, Richard Liebowitz, Suspended From Practicing Law
Re: Wow
Nope. We might instead think you’re a patsy.
On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him
Re: wow, this site has turned into utter dogshit
Why? That has nothing to do with the military, and therefore nothing to do with the NDAA. Good policy should be focused. And why should our military suffer because the internet doesn’t have enough regulations? Holding (part of) the government hostage in order to get something controversial through is never good policy.
On the post: Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him
Re: You just threw away main prior arguing point for The Interne
Because no one entity controls the whole thing, and many sites publish by default rather than choosing whether or not to publish beforehand.
Next >>