Fair point, but I'm going to feel more contempt for someone who has done harm, insured or not, than for someone who hasn't.
I would be more likely to feel contempt toward someone who hasn't caused harm yet but has no means to make a victim whole than for someone who has accidentally caused harm but repaired it in a responsible fashion. I have sympathy for people who need a car but can't afford insurance, but it's a problem that needs solving somehow (I don't know how), rather than just expecting everyone else to shoulder the risk that person is putting on them.
I honestly don't see a constitutional amendment in violation, which is the only thing SCOTUS is really supposed to rule on.
"The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."
My sexual taste doesn’t change the fact that a 40 year old with a dong doesn’t belong in a women’s bathroom. And a 40 year old with two holes has no business in the men’s room.
Strange that your comment has zero links in it. And I just recently had an eye exam too, so I know I would see them. Personally I don't see any reason to take any of your claims at face value at this point.
Even if all of your claims were true, it would not justify forcing anyone to host speech they do not want to host. Not to mention that you would have to repeal the 1st Amendment to get that to work. You know that right? Section 230 doesn't protect any actions that aren't also protected by 1A.
If the economy of illegal bribes has been going on for decades, then they've probably gotten so good at it that no one has reported on it.
Except that there were many people who would have been very interested in reporting on it that whole time. They would have had to be so good at it from the word go that it's gone completely undetected all these years. Given how easily things leak in Washington, I don't find that believable.
Instead, the company gives the senator's son some free toys and maybe gives the daughter an internship with the company.
I am sure that happens, probably a lot. I doubt it is the norm where most lawmakers are regularly accepting such bribes. I sure hope it isn't. It is also not the millions of dollars under the table that many people imagine happens on the regular to corrupt legislators.
there can be no other reason to stop people who buy something from being able to repair it when it goes wrong other that the law makers being paid ridiculous sums of money to prevent it from happening
The amount of money it takes to sway even a US Senator is surprisingly low, and these are state representatives. A few thousand would probably be plenty. This assumes that there hasn't been a widespread economy of illegal bribes going on for decades. I figure someone would have reported on that by now.
So let me get this straight. Facebook and Comcast are so similar they should be regulated in the same way (a comment you made on another story). But Twitter and blogs are so different that the same regulations could not reasonably apply to both. Is that about right?
Even amongst the cops there is a consensus that there is a huge disconnect between their actually training and just how well the public believes they are trained.
So to clarify, the public believes they're this highly trained force, and in reality they get almost no training, yes?
Yes social media and telecom are not literally the same thing but they are enough alike to fall under the same regulation.
Ah, I see the problem now. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Social media and telecom have almost nothing in common. Telecom is more like a storm drain system than it is like a social media platform.
how we allow a system where if a particular chief justice likes a book they can make the thesis book law with no action from the elected government needed at all.
Likes a book? What are you talking about?
Since we exist in only one universe and we cannot slide into an alternate universe it is not possible to prove to a legal standard that the consumer has been harmed as there is no null case to compare to.
There have been a non zero number of successful antitrust cases on the basis of consumer harm, which proves that it is in fact possible.
When experts, who haven't spend much time in their lives working in a regulated industry, this appears to be the case with Mr. Masnick, they tend to make the same arguments Mr. Masnick makes.
Argumentum ad hominem here. If the argument is flawed, you should be able to point out the flaws in the argument itself (which I notice you still have not done). Attacking the credentials or experience of the person making the argument is not appropriate and should not be necessary.
social media is as much like telecom, radio, etc. to be regulated under the same regulatory framework.
I can see how you might think since they're both some kind of transmission of information that it would be appropriate to regulate them the same way. But there are quite significant differences as well.
If companies are using their monopoly market power it control politics is that not one of the very purposes of anti-trust to stop?
Current jurisprudence focuses almost exclusively on harms to consumers. I haven't heard of any cases about excessive political power. Not that it isn't a problem, just that antitrust hasn't been a tool used to address it.
As different as these things are they are enough alike that they all fall under the same regulatory framework and follow largely the same rules.
You're saying that because electrical utilities and waste disposal can be regulated by the same body, therefore... what? Web sites should be regulated as common carriers? I don't even get where you're going with this.
This is where you specialized knowledge makes you completely ignorant.
Maybe your specialized knowledge has led you to believe that every field is like yours, and should be regulated in the same ways.
On the post: States Are Rolling Out Massive ALPR Networks To Take Down Dangerous... Uninsured Drivers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
That is generally optional coverage but may vary by state.
On the post: States Are Rolling Out Massive ALPR Networks To Take Down Dangerous... Uninsured Drivers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really?
I would be more likely to feel contempt toward someone who hasn't caused harm yet but has no means to make a victim whole than for someone who has accidentally caused harm but repaired it in a responsible fashion. I have sympathy for people who need a car but can't afford insurance, but it's a problem that needs solving somehow (I don't know how), rather than just expecting everyone else to shoulder the risk that person is putting on them.
On the post: Oh Look, Here's Some More Culture Being Canceled, Now Thanks To The Second Circuit
Re: Re:
"The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-out reach/activity-resources/about
There are tons of Supreme Court cases involving copyright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick
So you want these people in the women's restroom:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Patricio_Manuel.jpg
https://media.npr. org/assets/img/2015/04/19/dsc_0636_slide-12de188956ce20fc73e56c1903f3c59e597b5818-s1100-c15.webp
htt ps://media3.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2019_13/2798536/190325-web19-oliver-knight-1160x768-ac-515p_479d e50b71650346b864e2da619fca8d.jpg
And you want to tell these ones they have to use the men's room:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/branded_news/117EE/production/_107026617_img_8250.jpg
https ://static.independent.co.uk/2021/03/17/20/GettyImages-1174655452.jpg?width=982&height=726&au to=webp&quality=75
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/07/11/multimedia/11xp-sampaio-pix1/11xp- sampaio-mediumSquareAt3X.jpg
Why?
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re:
How do you propose doing that without repealing the 1st Amendment?
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Strange that your comment has zero links in it. And I just recently had an eye exam too, so I know I would see them. Personally I don't see any reason to take any of your claims at face value at this point.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re:
Even if all of your claims were true, it would not justify forcing anyone to host speech they do not want to host. Not to mention that you would have to repeal the 1st Amendment to get that to work. You know that right? Section 230 doesn't protect any actions that aren't also protected by 1A.
On the post: Uninformed Legislators Shoot Down Right To Repair Legislation In Colorado
Re: Re: Re:
Except that there were many people who would have been very interested in reporting on it that whole time. They would have had to be so good at it from the word go that it's gone completely undetected all these years. Given how easily things leak in Washington, I don't find that believable.
I am sure that happens, probably a lot. I doubt it is the norm where most lawmakers are regularly accepting such bribes. I sure hope it isn't. It is also not the millions of dollars under the table that many people imagine happens on the regular to corrupt legislators.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re: SMITR
Dang, that was quite a takedown.
On the post: Uninformed Legislators Shoot Down Right To Repair Legislation In Colorado
Re:
The amount of money it takes to sway even a US Senator is surprisingly low, and these are state representatives. A few thousand would probably be plenty. This assumes that there hasn't been a widespread economy of illegal bribes going on for decades. I figure someone would have reported on that by now.
On the post: The Trump DOJ/FCC 'Fix' For The Crappy T-Mobile Merger Isn't Looking So Hot
Re:
Citation needed.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Bill
Ah yes AAESSMCAPCSMWFCCPRS. Rolls right off the tongue.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
So let me get this straight. Facebook and Comcast are so similar they should be regulated in the same way (a comment you made on another story). But Twitter and blogs are so different that the same regulations could not reasonably apply to both. Is that about right?
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re:
As always.
On the post: Fourth Circuit Appeals Court Takes Aim At Police Officers' 'Training And Expertise' Assertions
Re:
So to clarify, the public believes they're this highly trained force, and in reality they get almost no training, yes?
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, I see the problem now. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Social media and telecom have almost nothing in common. Telecom is more like a storm drain system than it is like a social media platform.
On the post: It's Apparently Bipartisan To Threaten To Punish Companies Via Antitrust Law For Speech You Don't Like
Re: Re: Re:
Likes a book? What are you talking about?
There have been a non zero number of successful antitrust cases on the basis of consumer harm, which proves that it is in fact possible.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re:
Argumentum ad hominem here. If the argument is flawed, you should be able to point out the flaws in the argument itself (which I notice you still have not done). Attacking the credentials or experience of the person making the argument is not appropriate and should not be necessary.
I can see how you might think since they're both some kind of transmission of information that it would be appropriate to regulate them the same way. But there are quite significant differences as well.
https://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/what-makes-a-common-carrier-and-what-doesnt/
On the post: It's Apparently Bipartisan To Threaten To Punish Companies Via Antitrust Law For Speech You Don't Like
Re:
I think they were concerned with market power, not political power. But I would be interested in any information to the contrary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890#Background
Current jurisprudence focuses almost exclusively on harms to consumers. I haven't heard of any cases about excessive political power. Not that it isn't a problem, just that antitrust hasn't been a tool used to address it.
On the post: Justice Thomas Goes Weird Again; Suggests Twitter Can't Moderate & Section 230 Violates 1st Amendment
Re:
You're saying that because electrical utilities and waste disposal can be regulated by the same body, therefore... what? Web sites should be regulated as common carriers? I don't even get where you're going with this.
Maybe your specialized knowledge has led you to believe that every field is like yours, and should be regulated in the same ways.
Next >>