Not to mention that some of the games on Steam are re-releases of old games (like Sega actually selling their old Genesis/Mega Drive ROMs with an emulator they made themselves) as well as recent games that could be played on the actual hardware themselves.
So once again, TP (for my bunghole!) comes up with these BS excuses as why the deck is stacked against him when there is ample evidence that other people and organizations are doing a better job than him at things he said could not be done.
The pandemic is being used by those who object even to the idea of pharmaceutical patents to pursue their ultimate goal of killing them. But none of the proposed alternatives like prizes or direct government funding will sufficiently replace the benefits of patents. Without them the cycle of using revenue from previous medications to fund new ones will effectively end.
this is indeed frustrating. One could make the argument that Joe Biden is even more compromised than Justin Trudeau is vis-à-vis pharmaceuticals, but that didn't stop him from having political courage to support a TRIPS waiver. What Justin is doing is making me fear that the inevitable Tory PM who will replace Trudeau will be Canada's Trump.
If this decision is upheld, this is proof positive that §230 is not "blanket immunity" for tech companies. The very fact that §230 wasn't able to protect Snapchat based on the actions of one of its users shows that all of the hysterical §230-is-a-gift-to-big-tech folderol is just that: bullshit.
I believe the only member who would pass that test with flying colors would be Senator Ron Wyden (D-Or.), who actually co-wrote the amendment with then-Rep. Chris Cox (R-Orange County, CA).
In a vacuum, doing this would've been an easy choice seeing that there are lives on the line. But Biden was under enormous pressure from the Pharmaceutical companies, the Hollywood studios, and even Dr. Fauci not to grant the waivers, but he fucking did it anyway.
While there are many ways Biden could do better, it's as if he's trying to justify his presidency to the many people who voted for him not to feel the disillusionment that I felt after Obama and Bill Clinton. I can't speak for my brethren, but for me, it's working.
We don't setup parallel electrical grids or phone networks.
Weird, because Texas did. Also, Trump's microblog is on the same internet as Facebook and Twitter.
It's a public platform utility at this point, subject to common carrier rules.
The thing is, Utilities have to do with infrastructure, such as water, electricity, and broadband. Twitter and Facebook have nothing to do with any infrastructure.
> Even if alternatives are possible, such as connecting a generator to an appliance, or a two way radio connection is available, it's still a public network.
You're confused. Facebook and Twitter are private platforms.
And these utilities can be privately owned and maintained, yet obligated to allow public access.
But like I said, Twitter and Facebook (and YouTube and TikTok) don't deal with any network infrastructure. That's why they're not utilities.
On the whole, though, this is a good thing. I'm glad that Trump has set up his own site (no matter what happens with Facebook). More people should do that themselves as well, and recognize that then you get to set your own moderation rules and your own system, and don't have to deal with not violating someone else's rules. But it also shows how Facebook and Twitter removing him wasn't censorship -- it was just them saying he needs to find somewhere else to speak.
So Koby: is Trump having his own microblog and his own moderation rules a good thing or a bad thing?
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re: Re: And which 'politics' would those be by chance? Be specif
You can listen to Donald Trump. He has his own web site where he tweets out stuff.
You can also listen to Alex Jones, who still has InfoWars.
How are those two monstrous assholes "censored" (your words, not mine) if I can still go to their web sites and access their bilious rants?
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Analogous statistics…
I would like to see similar analogous statistics for, say
Alex Jones, and Red Candle's Games Devotion and Detention (if they can be assessed)
On the post: Steam Still Can't Seem To Keep Its Hands Off Some 'Sex Games' Despite Hands Off Policy
Re:
Not to mention that some of the games on Steam are re-releases of old games (like Sega actually selling their old Genesis/Mega Drive ROMs with an emulator they made themselves) as well as recent games that could be played on the actual hardware themselves.
So once again, TP (for my bunghole!) comes up with these BS excuses as why the deck is stacked against him when there is ample evidence that other people and organizations are doing a better job than him at things he said could not be done.
On the post: Canada Still Won't Commit To Supporting A Pandemic Patent Waiver
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say this without even an iota of evidence.
On the post: Canada Still Won't Commit To Supporting A Pandemic Patent Waiver
As an American who loves Canada,
this is indeed frustrating. One could make the argument that Joe Biden is even more compromised than Justin Trudeau is vis-à-vis pharmaceuticals, but that didn't stop him from having political courage to support a TRIPS waiver. What Justin is doing is making me fear that the inevitable Tory PM who will replace Trudeau will be Canada's Trump.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Families Of Car Crash Victims Can Continue To Sue Snapchat Over Its 'Speed Filter'
Re: So... A Darwin Award filter?
To be fair to the Darwin Awards, the winners last year should be the Anti-maskers who attended super-spreader events, got COVID, and died.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Families Of Car Crash Victims Can Continue To Sue Snapchat Over Its 'Speed Filter'
No Blanket Immunity.
If this decision is upheld, this is proof positive that §230 is not "blanket immunity" for tech companies. The very fact that §230 wasn't able to protect Snapchat based on the actions of one of its users shows that all of the hysterical §230-is-a-gift-to-big-tech folderol is just that: bullshit.
On the post: Disgraced Yale Law Professor Now Defending Anti-Vaxxers In Court With His Nonsense Section 230 Ideas
Re: Re: Yale Disgraced
Oh, and before I get misconstrued, my contempt of Yale is because of what my mother says about it. I do love my mother more than anything.
On the post: Disgraced Yale Law Professor Now Defending Anti-Vaxxers In Court With His Nonsense Section 230 Ideas
Re: Yale Disgraced
My mother went to Yale to study music back when it was a boy's club. It was a den of scum and villainy back then and it still is today.
On the post: Disgraced Yale Law Professor Now Defending Anti-Vaxxers In Court With His Nonsense Section 230 Ideas
"Disgraced Yale Law Professor"
I'm disappointed that a techdirt post is about a Disgraced Ivy League Law Professor and the Professor is not Alan Dershowitz.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Medical Patents are literally doing that now as we speak.
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re:
I believe the only member who would pass that test with flying colors would be Senator Ron Wyden (D-Or.), who actually co-wrote the amendment with then-Rep. Chris Cox (R-Orange County, CA).
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re:
Not just a SCOTUS precedent, but one from a Trump appointee that the left-wing unanimously opposed and the right-wing unanimously backed.
On the post: Fortnite, A Free Game, Made $9 Billion In Two Years
Re: Re: Competition Wins Again
I don't mind the microtransactions as much as other people; costumes are aesthetic and don't buy you an advantage, so I'm okay with it.
The lootboxes/gambling is extremely problematic, though, and if there's one place where I think video games should be regulated it's that aspect.
On the post: Huge News: US Gov't Agrees To Support Intellectual Property Waiver To Help Fight COVID
Incredibly brave of Biden
In a vacuum, doing this would've been an easy choice seeing that there are lives on the line. But Biden was under enormous pressure from the Pharmaceutical companies, the Hollywood studios, and even Dr. Fauci not to grant the waivers, but he fucking did it anyway.
While there are many ways Biden could do better, it's as if he's trying to justify his presidency to the many people who voted for him not to feel the disillusionment that I felt after Obama and Bill Clinton. I can't speak for my brethren, but for me, it's working.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re: Re:
Oops.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Blogging is back
So to put it in other words, "Protocols, not platforms"?
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re: Re:
Weird, because Texas did. Also, Trump's microblog is on the same internet as Facebook and Twitter.
The thing is, Utilities have to do with infrastructure, such as water, electricity, and broadband. Twitter and Facebook have nothing to do with any infrastructure.
> Even if alternatives are possible, such as connecting a generator to an appliance, or a two way radio connection is available, it's still a public network.
You're confused. Facebook and Twitter are private platforms.
But like I said, Twitter and Facebook (and YouTube and TikTok) don't deal with any network infrastructure. That's why they're not utilities.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Koby? Koby? Koby?
So Koby: is Trump having his own microblog and his own moderation rules a good thing or a bad thing?
On the post: The Washington Post Thought It Might Be Nice To Provide Free Book Marketing To Insurrectionist Josh Hawley
Re:
You mean they haven't been doing that?
Next >>