And you need special hardware purchase to get you in on the ground floor. So I think they are planning on a limited rollout. But still, does not look like a good value so far.
Re: Even if you were right, Blue Balls is a helpless troll
It's not a stretch to so associate
Everything you've said is a stretch. By your logic - corporations shouldn't be able to stop speech - Therefore copyright (corporate censorship) is forbidden.
Please, explain how you can be such a staunch defender of censorship?
Also - If your claims to love free speech are to be accepted - please show us the work you've done hosting a web page to support it? (Or do you just rant over at InfoWars about those damn pizza joints kidnapping children for Hillary?)
When someone goes out of their way to compile the definitive set of facts and caselaw (commonlaw!) surrounding 230, going postal is the only option the facts-adverse trolls have ToG.
Re: Step one to comitting atrocities: Dehumanization
... now if you'll excuse me, I suddenly feel the need to take a long shower and thoroughly rise my mouth out with water in order to get rid of the feeling of having waded through sewage with a mouth full of vomit that mysteriously appeared after typing the above.
ToG that is the cherished viewpoint of the Alt-Right, Nazis, and Trumpistastas. What could possibly be wrong with putting mexicans into concentration camps? Blessed are the children who are lost and die in the camps.
Oh yeah, I'm sure that'd go over great, though strangely enough I suspect that when it comes to enforced political neutrality there would be nary a mention of the likes of Fox for some strange reason...
Well obviously anyone pushing for this kind of viewpoint neutrality is a snowflake that melts when someone criticizes El Cheetos. Therefore their solution is to let the White House determine what is fair and balanced reporting!
in Spain, they had the link tax made mandatory. And Google News was disabled for the whole country.
This caused all pagecounts at news sites to plummet - unfortunately, it also decimated the hits to smaller sites. (A few larger news orgs pushed the bill against the wishes of the smaller independent sites.)
And that’s because distributors generally know exactly what speech is going into the publications they distribute.
Stephen, the AC wants all posts to be pre-filtered before posting so that they have proper foreknowledge. One at a time. By not less than three human lawyers, per post.
On the post: Court Says Section 230 Shields Twitter From Revenge Porn Bro's Stupid Lawsuit
Re:
Why, it’s almost as if the sites shouldn’t be held liable for the actions of a third party~. Imagine that~.
Good thing 230 has been ruled valid again and again since it's inception. Best law ever.
On the post: Google Stadia Is About To Show Everyone Why Broadband Usage Caps Are Bullshit
Re:
And you need special hardware purchase to get you in on the ground floor. So I think they are planning on a limited rollout. But still, does not look like a good value so far.
On the post: Court Says Section 230 Shields Twitter From Revenge Porn Bro's Stupid Lawsuit
Re:
Section 230 is what shielded my revenge-porn sites
Just how many revenge-port sites did (or do) you run, John Smith?!
All that and you had the time to swindle people with phoney self-help courses? You are a hard workin playah.
On the post: Radiohead Responds To Extortionate Hacker By Releasing Hacked Recordings For Charity
Re: Re: Re: Hacked?
Touche.
On the post: Radiohead Responds To Extortionate Hacker By Releasing Hacked Recordings For Charity
Re: Hacked?
The stole the archive of the mini disks - 2GB of data. Presumably they were archived on a computer, cloud, intertube and not still on the disks.
On the post: Historical Documentation Of Key Section 230 Cases
Re: Even if you were right, Blue Balls is a helpless troll
It's not a stretch to so associate
Everything you've said is a stretch. By your logic - corporations shouldn't be able to stop speech - Therefore copyright (corporate censorship) is forbidden.
Please, explain how you can be such a staunch defender of censorship?
Also - If your claims to love free speech are to be accepted - please show us the work you've done hosting a web page to support it? (Or do you just rant over at InfoWars about those damn pizza joints kidnapping children for Hillary?)
On the post: Historical Documentation Of Key Section 230 Cases
Re:
The SCOTUS has yet to rule on Section 230's distributor immunity.
Let me correct that!
No 230 case has needed SCOTUS review because it's sound law, upheld in dozens of cases.
On the post: Historical Documentation Of Key Section 230 Cases
Re:
When someone goes out of their way to compile the definitive set of facts and caselaw (commonlaw!) surrounding 230, going postal is the only option the facts-adverse trolls have ToG.
On the post: Turkish Gov't: Erdogan's Bodyguards Needed To Attack DC Protesters Because They Were Too Close When They Said Mean Things
Re: Re: It's called an F-BOMB for a reason you know
Erdogan, the ultimate snowflake.
I dunno. Ever seen a Trumpinista meltdown when you say something about El Cheetos?
On the post: Turkish Gov't: Erdogan's Bodyguards Needed To Attack DC Protesters Because They Were Too Close When They Said Mean Things
Re:
Shows what a Hitler copy Erdogan is!
That is too flattering to Erdogan. More like a Gollum clone.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/04/turkish-president-recep-tayyip-erdogan-gollum-mem e-lord-of-the-rings_n_8717346.html
On the post: NY Times Publishes Laughable Propaganda To Argue Google Owes Newspapers Like Itself Free Money
Re:
by becoming the propaganda and intelligence office of domestic and foreign elitists
Citation needed? What - You heard it on Infowars while discussing the secret sex ring that was run out of the pizza place?
On the post: Here's Why Net Neutrality Still Matters One Year After Repeal
Re: Re: Re: certain things
All three branches of government routinely violate the supposed constitutional limits upon their authority.
And your point is what? That the government should not have the right to make laws?
On the post: ICE Is Cramming Immigrants Into Filthy, Overcrowded Facilities
Re: Step one to comitting atrocities: Dehumanization
... now if you'll excuse me, I suddenly feel the need to take a long shower and thoroughly rise my mouth out with water in order to get rid of the feeling of having waded through sewage with a mouth full of vomit that mysteriously appeared after typing the above.
ToG that is the cherished viewpoint of the Alt-Right, Nazis, and Trumpistastas. What could possibly be wrong with putting mexicans into concentration camps? Blessed are the children who are lost and die in the camps.
On the post: Appeals Court Issues Strong CDA 230 Ruling, But It Will Be Misleadingly Quoted By Those Misrepresenting CDA 230
Re: Re: Re:
Oh yeah, I'm sure that'd go over great, though strangely enough I suspect that when it comes to enforced political neutrality there would be nary a mention of the likes of Fox for some strange reason...
Well obviously anyone pushing for this kind of viewpoint neutrality is a snowflake that melts when someone criticizes El Cheetos. Therefore their solution is to let the White House determine what is fair and balanced reporting!
On the post: Appeals Court Issues Strong CDA 230 Ruling, But It Will Be Misleadingly Quoted By Those Misrepresenting CDA 230
Re:
When moderation can influence the outcome of elections, Congress can decide to tie 230 immunity to political neutrality.
Ya got my "LOL" vote AC!
Good thing the rest of us have a body of caselaw (Commonlaw) and the bill of rights that say otherwise.
On the post: Appeals Court Issues Strong CDA 230 Ruling, But It Will Be Misleadingly Quoted By Those Misrepresenting CDA 230
Re: Re:
Having been in the usenet trenches - I would like to be able to choose to visit useful sites instead of ones forced to host spam, and nazis.
On the post: Appeals Court Issues Strong CDA 230 Ruling, But It Will Be Misleadingly Quoted By Those Misrepresenting CDA 230
Re:
That's a misreading. It says
You are misrepresenting 230. Your opinion isn't supported by caselaw, the stated intentions of the law, and the actual reading to the statue.
On the post: Comcast Gets $9 Million Fine For Tricking Customers With 'Worthless' Protection Plans
Re:
The Crime Does Not Pay Act
But this is corporate crime - the lawmakers are paid too much to pass laws that would hurt corporations!
On the post: Whining About Big Tech Doesn't Protect Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
in Spain, they had the link tax made mandatory. And Google News was disabled for the whole country.
This caused all pagecounts at news sites to plummet - unfortunately, it also decimated the hits to smaller sites. (A few larger news orgs pushed the bill against the wishes of the smaller independent sites.)
On the post: Mathew Higbee Cuts And Runs When Finally Challenged On A Questionable Shakedown
Re:
And that’s because distributors generally know exactly what speech is going into the publications they distribute.
Stephen, the AC wants all posts to be pre-filtered before posting so that they have proper foreknowledge. One at a time. By not less than three human lawyers, per post.
Next >>