I hope Koby sees this post and notices that Apple and Google are not liable for Telegram, and in turn, Telegram is not liable for the anti-Semitic speech its users post. This is as clear-cut an example as to how §230 protects free speech on the internet and not just big web sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Will Koby learn? Tune in to techdirt.com to find out!
I believe "toading", a.k.a. shaming the trolls by turning their avatar into a toad, has some pre-internet precedents:
-The Dunce Cap
-The Scarlet Letter
…That's all I can think of off the top of my head.
If I were to make my living room a public forum, then yes.
Let's use a different analogy then. Should 7-11 not have the right to kick you out if you violate their "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Mask, No Service" policy?
They think they have an inalienable right to disobey the rules for being on other people's property. It's as if they go to a McDonald's, shit on the floor, get banned from the premises, and then sue McDonald's for violating their first amendment rights. It would be laughable if it weren't so pervasive.
While I don't disagree with you about Democrats and those on the left lying about §230, Mike Masnick was responding to a video by the Federalist Society, which is a right-wing organization, and they cited Ted Cruz. Had it been on the other end of the political spectrum, I do not doubt for a second that Mr. Masnick would address the lies, as he has done so in the past.
They can't even see a children's book publisher decide to stop printing some of their least popular titles without crying persecution and demand the government stop them.
What's fascinating is that the conservatives would have a legitimate point if they were arguing that the copyright terms were too long such that the Dr. Seuss estate was in essence preventing people from reading their older material. But to my recollection, I haven't heard them make that argument.
The Letter accuses Ocean Spray of infringing “Wave Soda’s” trademark and trade dress rights through Ocean Spray’s line of OCEAN SPRAY WAVE products. According to the USPTO database, there is no registration for the mark NEW WAVE owned by an entity named Wave Soda,
And then I scrolled completely down to the PDF, looking for pictures of the trademark. I jumped to conclusions based on limited information and lack of reading comprehension.
I read both yours and That Anonymous Coward's replies, and I'm convinced; those were both good points I hadn't considered before. Thanks to both of you!
I looked at the document and saw Ocean Spray's soda cans and then plaintiff's soda cans I think there's definitely a possibility of confusion so I think Wedge Water's complaint is valid. I could see how someone who sees Wedge's Wave soda might think that Ocean Spray had redesigned their Wave products. In that respect, I think Wedge Water has a point here.
Considering everything that Ted Cruz has done in his entire career as a Senator, he doesn't even deserve the slightest shadow of the benefit of the doubt.
On the post: Malaysian Government Claims Insulting The Queen With A Spotify Playlist Is A Threat To National Security
Re: Playlist items
Update: Both of them are in the playlist! I'm 2 for 2!
On the post: Malaysian Government Claims Insulting The Queen With A Spotify Playlist Is A Threat To National Security
Playlist items
Is the playlist still up? If so, I wonder if the playlist has Natalie Merchant's "Jealousy" or the Gin Blossoms' "Hey Jealousy"…
On the post: Google Says Pretty Much Everything Shields It From Being Sued Over Things Telegram Users Said
Re: Re: Section 230 Protects Anti-Semites as well!
Darnit. But I can dream, can't I?
On the post: Google Says Pretty Much Everything Shields It From Being Sued Over Things Telegram Users Said
Section 230 Protects Anti-Semites as well!
I hope Koby sees this post and notices that Apple and Google are not liable for Telegram, and in turn, Telegram is not liable for the anti-Semitic speech its users post. This is as clear-cut an example as to how §230 protects free speech on the internet and not just big web sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Will Koby learn? Tune in to techdirt.com to find out!
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 280: Beyond Blocking: Thinking Creatively About Content Moderation
Re: "Toading"
I believe "toading", a.k.a. shaming the trolls by turning their avatar into a toad, has some pre-internet precedents:
-The Dunce Cap
-The Scarlet Letter
…That's all I can think of off the top of my head.
On the post: Senator Bill Hagerty Believes Compelled Speech Is 'Liberty'; And Anyone Upset With Moderation Choices Should Be Able To Sue
Re:
Let alone one appointed by Trump and hated by liberals and leftists and loved by conservatives.
On the post: Senator Bill Hagerty Believes Compelled Speech Is 'Liberty'; And Anyone Upset With Moderation Choices Should Be Able To Sue
Re: Re: Re: It's A Public Forum
Let's use a different analogy then. Should 7-11 not have the right to kick you out if you violate their "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Mask, No Service" policy?
On the post: Senator Bill Hagerty Believes Compelled Speech Is 'Liberty'; And Anyone Upset With Moderation Choices Should Be Able To Sue
Re:
I'm still firm in my belief that Josh Hawley knows better and is appealing to the lowest common denominator rather than being obtuse.
On the post: Senator Bill Hagerty Believes Compelled Speech Is 'Liberty'; And Anyone Upset With Moderation Choices Should Be Able To Sue
Re: Does "big tech" prevent you...
If Haggerty were referring to Amazon Web Services, he'd have a point, but as with Republicans these days, they don't know what they're up against.
On the post: Senator Bill Hagerty Believes Compelled Speech Is 'Liberty'; And Anyone Upset With Moderation Choices Should Be Able To Sue
Re: Re:
Take it up with a Justice Trump appointed, Republican senators voted for, and Democratic senators voted against in unison.
On the post: James O'Keefe Sues Twitter For Defamation... For Shutting Down His Account
Typical of Right-wing grifters.
They think they have an inalienable right to disobey the rules for being on other people's property. It's as if they go to a McDonald's, shit on the floor, get banned from the premises, and then sue McDonald's for violating their first amendment rights. It would be laughable if it weren't so pervasive.
On the post: How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
Re:
While I don't disagree with you about Democrats and those on the left lying about §230, Mike Masnick was responding to a video by the Federalist Society, which is a right-wing organization, and they cited Ted Cruz. Had it been on the other end of the political spectrum, I do not doubt for a second that Mr. Masnick would address the lies, as he has done so in the past.
On the post: How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
Re: Re:
What's fascinating is that the conservatives would have a legitimate point if they were arguing that the copyright terms were too long such that the Dr. Seuss estate was in essence preventing people from reading their older material. But to my recollection, I haven't heard them make that argument.
On the post: Ocean Spray Seeks Declaratory Relief After Soda Company Threatens It With Confused Trademark C&D
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disagree; think there's confusion
I got up to this point:
And then I scrolled completely down to the PDF, looking for pictures of the trademark. I jumped to conclusions based on limited information and lack of reading comprehension.
Mea culpa maxima.
On the post: Ocean Spray Seeks Declaratory Relief After Soda Company Threatens It With Confused Trademark C&D
Re: Prior art
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/875/
On the post: Ocean Spray Seeks Declaratory Relief After Soda Company Threatens It With Confused Trademark C&D
Re: Re: Disagree; think there's confusion
I read both yours and That Anonymous Coward's replies, and I'm convinced; those were both good points I hadn't considered before. Thanks to both of you!
On the post: Patent Troll Sable Networks Apparently Needs To Learn A Lesson: Cloudflare Wants To Destroy Another Troll
Re: Re: Re:
So I can't patent my two tin cans with a string through them?
Darnit…
On the post: Ocean Spray Seeks Declaratory Relief After Soda Company Threatens It With Confused Trademark C&D
Disagree; think there's confusion
I looked at the document and saw Ocean Spray's soda cans and then plaintiff's soda cans I think there's definitely a possibility of confusion so I think Wedge Water's complaint is valid. I could see how someone who sees Wedge's Wave soda might think that Ocean Spray had redesigned their Wave products. In that respect, I think Wedge Water has a point here.
On the post: How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
Re:
How do you think Trump got to where he did? He told comforting lies to people who gobbled it up like flies eating shit.
On the post: How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
Re: Re:
Considering everything that Ted Cruz has done in his entire career as a Senator, he doesn't even deserve the slightest shadow of the benefit of the doubt.
Next >>