You use your own platform to talk and communicate any way you want.
Facebook or any other platform does not have any obligation to host it.
The beauty of the internet is that everyone has a printing press. You don't have to use someone else's press. You can set up your own. And nobody else should be required to "print" your speech if they don't wish to.
Your talking and communicating isn't in danger. Only your ability to force it upon other people.
I would point out FoxNews, CNN and others as an example. Each of them can publish what their owners want. They aren't forced to publish certain views. And if you don't like what they say, you're not forced to watch it any more than you are forced to go to facebook.
Clue: some of us don't even have FaceTwit accounts and never will.
I don't think it is workable to try to go after criminal thoughts. But once expressed into language, it is possible to protect from hate speech.
It is definitely possible to go after criminal actions. That includes hate crimes. Criminal actions begin with criminal thoughts, but the actions are externalized, affect other people, recognizable and actionable.
I don't think Donald Trump, or any other candidate should get special treatment on this.
If FaceTwit isn't available, then a certain presidential candidate will be unhappy. I won't name any names. But he or she likes to sit on his/her solid gold toilet bowl at 3 AM using FaceTwit.
A service outage could be a reason to push the big red button.
Yes, it's still technically active. For certain values of active. But it's in the appeals process. There should some good reading in IBM's response in early November.
So yes, corrupt law breaking attorneys, and CEOs can evade justice for many years. Maybe even forever.
It is not so much the number of police interactions that disturbs me. It's the nature of them.
Once upon a time, police interactions were more of the form "how are you doing?", "have a nice day", etc.
Police acted like members of a community rather than an occupying military invasion force against a domestic insurgency.
Remember the saying, if you treat people like children, they'll act like children? If you treat people like a military enemy (including shooting them with military gear), then they'll start to act like a military enemy.
A simple time proven way to get more data on police shootings is to increase the number of police shootings. (But how about let's start getting every one of them on camera?)
Another alternative would be to stop the police shootings and forget about collecting data. Just stop it. Stop already.
Ad networks should have to pay their own freight. If they're going to start playing a video through the ad, they darn well ought to be paying for that bandwidth.
How about the ISPs charge ad networks to be zero rated?
And ad networks that aren't zero rated are blocked by the ISP.
I think I like that plan.
My ISP gets more money from the advertiser.
If the advertiser is paying to be zero rated, then my user agent will block the ad at my own browser. So I'm still safe and secure and oblivious to having web pages polluted with twitching screaming blinking seizure inducing ads.
One of the several problems with Zero Rating is that the customer is now paying for their bandwidth twice.
I pay for my bandwidth. Netflix pays (quite handsomely) for its bandwidth.
Now comes the evil zero rating . . .
The ISP charges Netflix for zero rating. Netflix ultimately will pass that cost along to customers. Now Netflix is paying it's own ISP (handsomely) for it's bandwidth, and Netflix is paying MY ISP. And I am paying my ISP.
My ISP is double dipping.
If My ISP doesn't like how much bandwidth I'm using on Netflix, then CHARGE ME FOR IT. It is ME using that bandwidth, not Netflix. Netflix doesn't just magically start using bandwidth on my connection. I am using that bandwidth, for my own pleasure, at my own request. Netflix is just answering my requests with responses.
The double dipping, that's what's wrong (or one of several things wrong) with zero rating. I'm paying my ISP for my bandwidth, and I'm paying my ISP for Netflix being able to be zero rated -- which is not something I need if I had a fair bandwidth cap.
And that brings me to bandwidth caps. TD has already had stories covering how bandwidth caps are not necessary. The only reason for bandwidth caps is to have a way to introduce the scam of Zero Rating. Without bandwidth caps that scam couldn't exist.
Zero Rating and Usage Caps don't cause anyone significant problems. Unless you're talking about those pesky customers. Oh, yeah. Them again. But for the mobile operators and ISPs zero rating is a great revenue double dipping scam. And usage caps can be a way to upsell customers, yes, those pesky nuisance customers again, to a more expensive service plan.
Copyright law being f'ed up doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate copyright claims of infringement. This is one. It may be petty, but it is technically correct.
Trump, like everyone else, should only use images that they have an actual license to use. Even if it is a Creative Commons, or open source, or a commercial license, or other type of license. And you must comply with whatever license that allows you to use the copyrighted work.
Why should this be different for Trump?
Oh, wait. Nevermind. The rules don't apply to him.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
Re: You Must
Facebook or any other platform does not have any obligation to host it.
The beauty of the internet is that everyone has a printing press. You don't have to use someone else's press. You can set up your own. And nobody else should be required to "print" your speech if they don't wish to.
Your talking and communicating isn't in danger. Only your ability to force it upon other people.
I would point out FoxNews, CNN and others as an example. Each of them can publish what their owners want. They aren't forced to publish certain views. And if you don't like what they say, you're not forced to watch it any more than you are forced to go to facebook.
Clue: some of us don't even have FaceTwit accounts and never will.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
Re: Completion
It is definitely possible to go after criminal actions. That includes hate crimes. Criminal actions begin with criminal thoughts, but the actions are externalized, affect other people, recognizable and actionable.
I don't think Donald Trump, or any other candidate should get special treatment on this.
On the post: FTC Warns AT&T Court Victory On Throttling Could Screw Consumers For Decades
Dear AT&T
On the post: 'Nice Internet You've Got There... You Wouldn't Want Something To Happen To It...'
If FaceTwit isn't available . . .
A service outage could be a reason to push the big red button.
On the post: Team Prenda Loses Big Again: Told To Pay Over $650k For Bogus Defamation Lawsuit
Re: Re:
Yes, it's still technically active. For certain values of active. But it's in the appeals process. There should some good reading in IBM's response in early November.
So yes, corrupt law breaking attorneys, and CEOs can evade justice for many years. Maybe even forever.
God bless America!
On the post: FTC Warns AT&T Court Victory On Throttling Could Screw Consumers For Decades
Schrodinger's Title II
AT&T is in a superposition state.
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
Re:
Those videos. Both the nature of them, and the number of them ARE significant data.
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
Re: Re: Too many police interactions
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
Re: Re: pick and choose
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
Too many police interactions
Once upon a time, police interactions were more of the form "how are you doing?", "have a nice day", etc.
Police acted like members of a community rather than an occupying military invasion force against a domestic insurgency.
Remember the saying, if you treat people like children, they'll act like children? If you treat people like a military enemy (including shooting them with military gear), then they'll start to act like a military enemy.
On the post: FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'
More data on police shootings
Another alternative would be to stop the police shootings and forget about collecting data. Just stop it. Stop already.
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
Re:
Tesla branded electrons are better for your battery and the life of your car.
On the post: FCC Fines T-Mobile For Abusing The Definition Of 'Unlimited' Data
Re:
How about the ISPs charge ad networks to be zero rated?
And ad networks that aren't zero rated are blocked by the ISP.
I think I like that plan.
My ISP gets more money from the advertiser.
If the advertiser is paying to be zero rated, then my user agent will block the ad at my own browser. So I'm still safe and secure and oblivious to having web pages polluted with twitching screaming blinking seizure inducing ads.
On the post: FCC Fines T-Mobile For Abusing The Definition Of 'Unlimited' Data
Re:
I pay for my bandwidth.
Netflix pays (quite handsomely) for its bandwidth.
Now comes the evil zero rating . . .
The ISP charges Netflix for zero rating. Netflix ultimately will pass that cost along to customers. Now Netflix is paying it's own ISP (handsomely) for it's bandwidth, and Netflix is paying MY ISP. And I am paying my ISP.
My ISP is double dipping.
If My ISP doesn't like how much bandwidth I'm using on Netflix, then CHARGE ME FOR IT. It is ME using that bandwidth, not Netflix. Netflix doesn't just magically start using bandwidth on my connection. I am using that bandwidth, for my own pleasure, at my own request. Netflix is just answering my requests with responses.
The double dipping, that's what's wrong (or one of several things wrong) with zero rating. I'm paying my ISP for my bandwidth, and I'm paying my ISP for Netflix being able to be zero rated -- which is not something I need if I had a fair bandwidth cap.
And that brings me to bandwidth caps. TD has already had stories covering how bandwidth caps are not necessary. The only reason for bandwidth caps is to have a way to introduce the scam of Zero Rating. Without bandwidth caps that scam couldn't exist.
Hope that helps clear things up.
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
But Apple can't be allowed to do this!
I didn't expect Tesla to do something like this. I would expect nothing less from Apple.
Still, Tesla can't be allowed to do this.
On the post: FCC Fines T-Mobile For Abusing The Definition Of 'Unlimited' Data
Causing significant problems?
On the post: FCC Fines T-Mobile For Abusing The Definition Of 'Unlimited' Data
Abusing the definition
On the post: Skittles Photographer Actually Sues Trump Campaign Over Infringement
Re:
On the post: Skittles Photographer Actually Sues Trump Campaign Over Infringement
Re: Re: Abolish copyright.
Five years.
On the post: Skittles Photographer Actually Sues Trump Campaign Over Infringement
Re:
Trump, like everyone else, should only use images that they have an actual license to use. Even if it is a Creative Commons, or open source, or a commercial license, or other type of license. And you must comply with whatever license that allows you to use the copyrighted work.
Why should this be different for Trump?
Oh, wait. Nevermind. The rules don't apply to him.
Next >>