Re: You can't state fact without WHY Parler should ban them!
You clearly don’t know what “tautological” means. And it’s not criticism of Parler’s moderation to point out that they’re doing exactly what Twitter does. The issue is the hypocrisy, not the moderation. We all pretty much agree that Parler can and should moderate its forum as it feels necessary; the sticking point is that all defenses of Parler can also apply to Twitter.
Well, don’t let us stop you. Just don’t come whining to us when you find out that paper ballots that don’t have one of the valid candidates’ names in a runoff don’t get counted.
You can put whatever you want as a name without logging in. Anonymous Coward is just the default and more of a tongue-in-cheek thing.
You also clearly don’t understand communism or Marxism. Nor do you read this site much, which is clearly not a leftist-devoted site. Have you seen the criticisms of many democrats and liberals?
Then you didn't read the prior articles about what changes were and were not made.
I’m just saying that Trump cared little about what changes actually were, and most analyses I’ve read suggest that little changed between the old and the new trade agreements. From what you said, nothing actually changed regarding copyright in the USCMA, despite apparent attempts from lobbyists to make copyright worse. Furthermore, from what I read about the negotiations, Trump personally didn’t actually have much to do with that beyond wanting a new agreement ASAP.
Then you haven't read Techdirt long enough to know how corrupt the MPAA/RIAA are. That they do not care about copyright reform. Copyright is a joke and just a tool used to destroy culture, freedom, communication, and sharing. The MPAA aren't for the artists, they are for screwing artists and the public at large through any means necessary.
Congratulations on completely missing the point. For the record, I actually agree with most of what you just said. However, “caring about” something is not the same thing as “supporting” something. MPAA and RIAA care a lot about preventing real copyright reform. And when I said that I was refining the statement to go beyond a strictly literal interpretation of what “caring about copyright” means, I meant to exclude the MPAA and RIAA.
My actual point was that failing to do what the opposition to copyright reform wants doesn’t prove that one actually cares about copyright reform. It could be that they just didn’t care enough either way. To demonstrate someone actually caring about copyright reform, you’d need active steps (or at least words) towards promoting/supporting copyright reform, not just failing to make things worse.
It’d be nice if you could address what I actually say rather than misunderstand my statements and attack a strawman. You should probably work on your reading comprehension.
Let me be clear: the MPAA and RIAA are horribly corrupt, and copyright as it exists today is a direct result of that. They don’t want to make copyright better for artists or the public at large. That said, none of that refutes anything I said, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not Trump or current federal Republican politicians care about copyright reform. Not making copyright worse is not necessarily indicative of a desire to improve copyright.
To disprove the headline, you have to show something Republicans did (or at least attempted or directly expressed support for) that would actually improve copyright, not simply maintain the status quo. Anything else is irrelevant, inadequate, and/or supports the headline.
Dude, I’ve had multiple comments “held for moderation”, and I guarantee we don’t share the same viewpoint. Did I react by spamming until something got through? Did I rant about being censored? No. I waited patiently, and they eventually got through.
Also, the fact that a number of your comments got through shows that it’s not the case that every comment has to be okayed first because why would they let these ones through? It also shows a lack of viewpoint discrimination because, again, a number of your comments are visible on this site.
Re: WHO was the NY Post "harassing" when kicked off Twitter?
So, after quoting Masnick giving a reason Twitter removes people that isn’t any more arbitrary than Parler, you ask us to give a reason? Seriously, the quote answers that for you: to deal with harassment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is fals
The USMCA was in a way an FU to the copyright MPAA/RIAA marfia. They wanted to take the world when he gave them nothing more than was already in the previous trade agreement.
And I disagree that the lack of copyright changes in the USMCA was anything more than just Trump wanting to get a new deal even if little actually changes with it. He probably did not care enough about copyright to try to put it in. I’m not sure he actually used the input from any industry to make decisions in those negotiations.
So you're saying that if Trump were corrupt by the MPAA/RIAA like the DNC is and was pushing their draconian copyright law/policy, he would care about copyright?
Well, technically yes. The MPAA/RIAA care about copyright too, after all. That said, I think the most reasonable interpretation of the question is that it’s about wanting to reform copyright, not make it more stringent, and failing to make it worse doesn’t mean he cares to make it better.
I don’t normally defend Microsoft and especially not Bethesda, but I think I have an idea for how games could be “best” on PC/Xbox without being about content, specifically. Basically, with the inside knowledge from Microsoft, the idea might be to make Bethesda games optimized for PC and XBox consoles.
Similarly, it’s possible “first” merely means “first-rate”.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
At this point, let’s just agree to disagree. As you said, the claim is fairly subjective, so a lot of the arguments would just be about what we consider to be adequate evidence in our opinion.
For example, IMO, not including copyright in the USMCA isn’t evidence that Trump cares about copyright or evidence that he doesn’t; it could be construed either way, honestly, which makes it weak evidence.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Re: You can't state fact without WHY Parler should ban them!
Being truthful doesn’t mean it’s not ad hom or making fun. Also, have you heard of projection?
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: You can't state fact without WHY Parler should ban them!
You clearly don’t know what “tautological” means. And it’s not criticism of Parler’s moderation to point out that they’re doing exactly what Twitter does. The issue is the hypocrisy, not the moderation. We all pretty much agree that Parler can and should moderate its forum as it feels necessary; the sticking point is that all defenses of Parler can also apply to Twitter.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: #WriteInTrumpForGA
Well, don’t let us stop you. Just don’t come whining to us when you find out that paper ballots that don’t have one of the valid candidates’ names in a runoff don’t get counted.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: 1st amendment
That’s the point of the article.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re:
You can put whatever you want as a name without logging in. Anonymous Coward is just the default and more of a tongue-in-cheek thing.
You also clearly don’t understand communism or Marxism. Nor do you read this site much, which is clearly not a leftist-devoted site. Have you seen the criticisms of many democrats and liberals?
On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline
I’m just saying that Trump cared little about what changes actually were, and most analyses I’ve read suggest that little changed between the old and the new trade agreements. From what you said, nothing actually changed regarding copyright in the USCMA, despite apparent attempts from lobbyists to make copyright worse. Furthermore, from what I read about the negotiations, Trump personally didn’t actually have much to do with that beyond wanting a new agreement ASAP.
Congratulations on completely missing the point. For the record, I actually agree with most of what you just said. However, “caring about” something is not the same thing as “supporting” something. MPAA and RIAA care a lot about preventing real copyright reform. And when I said that I was refining the statement to go beyond a strictly literal interpretation of what “caring about copyright” means, I meant to exclude the MPAA and RIAA.
My actual point was that failing to do what the opposition to copyright reform wants doesn’t prove that one actually cares about copyright reform. It could be that they just didn’t care enough either way. To demonstrate someone actually caring about copyright reform, you’d need active steps (or at least words) towards promoting/supporting copyright reform, not just failing to make things worse.
It’d be nice if you could address what I actually say rather than misunderstand my statements and attack a strawman. You should probably work on your reading comprehension.
Let me be clear: the MPAA and RIAA are horribly corrupt, and copyright as it exists today is a direct result of that. They don’t want to make copyright better for artists or the public at large. That said, none of that refutes anything I said, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not Trump or current federal Republican politicians care about copyright reform. Not making copyright worse is not necessarily indicative of a desire to improve copyright.
To disprove the headline, you have to show something Republicans did (or at least attempted or directly expressed support for) that would actually improve copyright, not simply maintain the status quo. Anything else is irrelevant, inadequate, and/or supports the headline.
On the post: Senator Tillis Plans Major Copyright Overhaul: Recognizes Legit Problems, But Current Solutions Are Lacking
Re: we're just gonna have to wait and see
Actually, the text of most bills is made public before they come up for a vote.
On the post: Senator Tillis Plans Major Copyright Overhaul: Recognizes Legit Problems, But Current Solutions Are Lacking
Re: OKAYING EACH WAS CLEARLY TURNED ON.
Dude, I’ve had multiple comments “held for moderation”, and I guarantee we don’t share the same viewpoint. Did I react by spamming until something got through? Did I rant about being censored? No. I waited patiently, and they eventually got through.
Also, the fact that a number of your comments got through shows that it’s not the case that every comment has to be okayed first because why would they let these ones through? It also shows a lack of viewpoint discrimination because, again, a number of your comments are visible on this site.
On the post: Senator Tillis Plans Major Copyright Overhaul: Recognizes Legit Problems, But Current Solutions Are Lacking
Re: Re: Re: Re: The 'only “stakeholders” in copyright' ARE t
Patents should be restricted to working prototypes, but they aren’t. It’s actually a huge problem with the US patent system.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: WHO was the NY Post "harassing" when kicked off Twitter?
So, after quoting Masnick giving a reason Twitter removes people that isn’t any more arbitrary than Parler, you ask us to give a reason? Seriously, the quote answers that for you: to deal with harassment.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Huh. Comments not "hidden" for near hour...
No. That’s just because it takes a while for enough flags to accumulate.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Re: Again Maz don't know 'bout common law terms:
I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works at all.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Evidently The Maz wants LOTS of comments...
There is no length limit.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Was Twitter banning NYPost over Biden crimes a "glitch"?
Yes, but not a policy against conservatives. It was a policy against leaked emails. It was a bad policy, but it was perfectly even-handed.
That never happened.
On the post: Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?
Re: Re: Re:
I’m pretty sure that this was a joke.
On the post: Disney (Disney!) Accused Of Trying To Lawyer Its Way Out Of Paying Royalties To Alan Dean Foster
Re: Geometry
In mathematics, a curve is any path connecting two points. It doesn’t have to be curvy.
On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is fals
And I disagree that the lack of copyright changes in the USMCA was anything more than just Trump wanting to get a new deal even if little actually changes with it. He probably did not care enough about copyright to try to put it in. I’m not sure he actually used the input from any industry to make decisions in those negotiations.
Well, technically yes. The MPAA/RIAA care about copyright too, after all. That said, I think the most reasonable interpretation of the question is that it’s about wanting to reform copyright, not make it more stringent, and failing to make it worse doesn’t mean he cares to make it better.
On the post: Microsoft: Bethesda Games Will Be 'First, Best' On Xbox, PC
I don’t normally defend Microsoft and especially not Bethesda, but I think I have an idea for how games could be “best” on PC/Xbox without being about content, specifically. Basically, with the inside knowledge from Microsoft, the idea might be to make Bethesda games optimized for PC and XBox consoles.
Similarly, it’s possible “first” merely means “first-rate”.
On the post: Why Don't Conservatives Care About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the headline is false(READ)
At this point, let’s just agree to disagree. As you said, the claim is fairly subjective, so a lot of the arguments would just be about what we consider to be adequate evidence in our opinion.
For example, IMO, not including copyright in the USMCA isn’t evidence that Trump cares about copyright or evidence that he doesn’t; it could be construed either way, honestly, which makes it weak evidence.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re:
And that’s fine, but that’s exactly what Twitter does, too.
Next >>