I read the article. Perhaps you should re-read it, and see how easy it was to get him off by simply pointing to the fact that he was known to be elsewhere when the crime happened.
If you don't want your DNA to end up in the hands of law enforcement
...then don't murder people. Don't commit violent crimes, don't do things that screw up other people's lives, and the police won't care about your DNA.
It really is that simple, and it astounds me that people seem to think that this is somehow a bad thing.
So once again, the Twits at Twitter screw things up for the Twits using Twitter, while the rest of us just sit back and laugh. I cannot for the life of me understand how such an insipid service ever gained even a fraction of the popularity it's achieved...
Meh. This just means people are starting to wake up. Facebook's had serious problems in these areas pretty much since the beginning. It's like I've been saying for years and years now:
Google: "Don't be evil."
Facebook: "Don't even bother pretending we're not being evil."
Yeah, the Supreme Court's ruling makes no sense when the First Amendment explicitly guarantees the right of the people to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Just another example of how corrupt the current Court is...
I worry about this argument. It appears to expand on the (faulty, in my belief) argument that we've been seeing in numerous recent cases trying to misuse the Packingham ruling to mean that no platform can ever kick a user off their service, as that would violate their First Amendment rights.
I rejoice in this argument. It shows that this guy gets it. When private entities begin to take over functions that have been traditionally managed by government, such as operation of a de facto public square for public discourse, then the same restrictions on their actions for the protections of the rights of the public that have traditionally applied to the government must also apply to these private entities, such as the First Amendment and the rights to Due Process and to the Presumption of Innocence.
I don't think that "no platform can ever kick a user off their service" under this legal regime, but rather that they cannot do so arbitrarily or capriciously; to exclude someone from the public square they absolutely should need to be able to show in a court of law that this person has done something worthy of being excluded from the public square.
With great power comes great responsibility. When your power approaches that of state actors, so must your accountability.
Because some who claim to be members of a 'left wing' faction do some bad things does not make the 'left wing' bad, or violent. When the 'left wing' becomes violent, then their whole raisons d'être goes nil.
...huh?
Do you know where the basic concept of a "left wing" originated? It came from the events surrounding the French Revolution and its aftermath--one of the bloodiest, ugliest, most violent periods of barbarity, inhumanity, and senseless waste in human history.
(Preemptive note: please note that I said exactly what I said here, and did not say anything that I didn't actually say. For example, I did not say anything implying that the history of the right is praiseworthy simply because the history of the left is ugly.)
So what? If the act is the same, why call it something different based on who it is who's doing it? It's still bad no matter who it is who did it, for all the same reasons.
I love XKCD, but I'll make an exception for that strip. It's very wrong, for reasons I explained above, and people keep citing it to justify things that are wrong.
Read that again. The argument is that, in effect, because Twitter has failed to ban similar "left-wing groups" this is discrimination. But, that directly runs afoul of CDA 230, which is explicit that the decisions to moderate (or not!) some content, does not make you liable for other content you moderate (or fail to moderate).
You appear to be conflating "content" with "person who produces content."
It says that no provider may be liable for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." In other words, what Twitter decides to remove is its decision alone.
What, not who. There's a difference between moderation and prior restraint, and ISTM that Twitter is on the wrong side of that difference. Just as a matter of principle, if prior restraint is something that we don't even trust our democratically-elected government, which is accountable to the people, to do except under the most exigent circumstances, why in the world should we entrust an unaccountable private entity with that power?
The fact that IMDb has a financial interest in people's reliance on IMDb.com for information doesn't transform the age-related information restricted by AB 1687 into commercial speech.
This is very interesting. How big of a precedent does this set? Several times in the past, we've seen Techdirt stories about people trying to make exactly this claim (or even weaker ones) about random posts on the Web being "commercial speech". It would seem that this demolishes that notion entirely.
The thin line that exists between entertainment industry DRM software and plain malware
I'mma stop you right there. No such line exists, or has ever existed. The sooner we acknowledge this simple fact, the sooner we can get around to fixing it.
the court agrees that Disney is engaged in copyright misuse because it is using its copyright in the movies to restrict what happens to purchases.
Wow. How big of a precedent does this set, and how broadly can it be applied? If it's finally been (correctly!) recognized by the courts that attempting to turn a copy-right into a usage-right is copyright misuse, that has potentially massive implications!
Actually the first sale doctrine is perfectly designed for the digital age. If you look at the court case that first established it, what was at issue was a EULA. Sure, it was on a book rather than a piece of software, and the term EULA hadn't been invented yet, but that's exactly what it was: a "contract of adhesion" that attempted to abuse copyright and turn it into a usage-right, dictating what people can and cannot do with property they legally purchased. And the court looked at it and said "no, you can't do that."
This is perfect for the digital world. Unfortunately, the courts have been highly inconsistent in applying this simple, clear principle to digital technology.
On paper, yes. In practice, it's been virtually neutered by a long string of horrible court rulings that make it actually apply to essentially nothing at all. As long as you can make a good-faith claim that you hold the copyright to the thing being complained about, or an authorized representative of the copyright holder, the actual takedown request can be as blatantly fraudulent as the day is long and you'll get away with it.
On the post: Police Use Genealogy Site To Locate Murder Suspect They'd Been Hunting For More Than 30 Years
Re: Re:
On the post: Police Use Genealogy Site To Locate Murder Suspect They'd Been Hunting For More Than 30 Years
...then don't murder people. Don't commit violent crimes, don't do things that screw up other people's lives, and the police won't care about your DNA.
It really is that simple, and it astounds me that people seem to think that this is somehow a bad thing.
On the post: In-N-Out Sues Australian Burger Joint, Despite Having No Restaurants In The Country
I've seen them in Utah as well.
On the post: Open Letter On Ending Attacks On Security Research
Ok everybody, once more with feeling:
This is why we need a federal anti-SLAPP law.
On the post: Again, Algorithms Suck At Determining 'Bad' Content, Often To Hilarious Degrees
By Twits, For Twits
On the post: Broadband Industry Aims To Use Facebook Fracas To Saddle Silicon Valley With Crappy New Laws
I keep seeing this line on here. So once again, I'll respond, have they stopped building "shadow profiles" on non-Facebook users yet?
On the post: Facebook Derangement Syndrome: The Company Has Problems, But Must We Read The Worst Into Absolutely Everything?
Meh. This just means people are starting to wake up. Facebook's had serious problems in these areas pretty much since the beginning. It's like I've been saying for years and years now:
Google: "Don't be evil." Facebook: "Don't even bother pretending we're not being evil."
On the post: CenturyLink Tries To Dodge Broadband Billing Lawsuit By Claiming It Technically Has No Subscribers
Re:
Yeah, the Supreme Court's ruling makes no sense when the First Amendment explicitly guarantees the right of the people to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Just another example of how corrupt the current Court is...
On the post: Cali Lawmakers Pushing For 72-Hour Bot Removal Requirements For Social Media Companies
Remove a tiny bit of oversimplification and it becomes a whole lot less ridiculous:
Not only is this not ridiculous, it's trivially true.
On the post: Court Says Scraping Websites And Creating Fake Profiles Can Be Protected By The First Amendment
I rejoice in this argument. It shows that this guy gets it. When private entities begin to take over functions that have been traditionally managed by government, such as operation of a de facto public square for public discourse, then the same restrictions on their actions for the protections of the rights of the public that have traditionally applied to the government must also apply to these private entities, such as the First Amendment and the rights to Due Process and to the Presumption of Innocence.
I don't think that "no platform can ever kick a user off their service" under this legal regime, but rather that they cannot do so arbitrarily or capriciously; to exclude someone from the public square they absolutely should need to be able to show in a court of law that this person has done something worthy of being excluded from the public square.
With great power comes great responsibility. When your power approaches that of state actors, so must your accountability.
On the post: Famous Racist Sues Twitter Claiming It Violates His Civil Rights As A Racist To Be Kicked Off The Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...huh?
Do you know where the basic concept of a "left wing" originated? It came from the events surrounding the French Revolution and its aftermath--one of the bloodiest, ugliest, most violent periods of barbarity, inhumanity, and senseless waste in human history.
(Preemptive note: please note that I said exactly what I said here, and did not say anything that I didn't actually say. For example, I did not say anything implying that the history of the right is praiseworthy simply because the history of the left is ugly.)
On the post: Famous Racist Sues Twitter Claiming It Violates His Civil Rights As A Racist To Be Kicked Off The Platform
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Nevada Supreme Court Overturns Lower Court's Abysmal Ruling On Las Vegas Shooting Coroner's Reports
It's nice to see him doing something good for once...
On the post: Famous Racist Sues Twitter Claiming It Violates His Civil Rights As A Racist To Be Kicked Off The Platform
Re:
On the post: Famous Racist Sues Twitter Claiming It Violates His Civil Rights As A Racist To Be Kicked Off The Platform
You appear to be conflating "content" with "person who produces content."
What, not who. There's a difference between moderation and prior restraint, and ISTM that Twitter is on the wrong side of that difference. Just as a matter of principle, if prior restraint is something that we don't even trust our democratically-elected government, which is accountable to the people, to do except under the most exigent circumstances, why in the world should we entrust an unaccountable private entity with that power?
On the post: Federal Court Shuts Down IMDb-Targeting 'Anti-Ageism' Law Permanently
This is very interesting. How big of a precedent does this set? Several times in the past, we've seen Techdirt stories about people trying to make exactly this claim (or even weaker ones) about random posts on the Web being "commercial speech". It would seem that this demolishes that notion entirely.
On the post: Game Studio Found To Install Malware DRM On Customers' Machines, Defends Itself, Then Apologizes
I'mma stop you right there. No such line exists, or has ever existed. The sooner we acknowledge this simple fact, the sooner we can get around to fixing it.
On the post: Disney's Stupid Lawsuit Against Redbox Results In Judge Saying Disney Is Engaged In Copyright Misuse
Wow. How big of a precedent does this set, and how broadly can it be applied? If it's finally been (correctly!) recognized by the courts that attempting to turn a copy-right into a usage-right is copyright misuse, that has potentially massive implications!
On the post: Disney's Stupid Lawsuit Against Redbox Results In Judge Saying Disney Is Engaged In Copyright Misuse
Re: Re: why cant i resell used mp3s
Actually the first sale doctrine is perfectly designed for the digital age. If you look at the court case that first established it, what was at issue was a EULA. Sure, it was on a book rather than a piece of software, and the term EULA hadn't been invented yet, but that's exactly what it was: a "contract of adhesion" that attempted to abuse copyright and turn it into a usage-right, dictating what people can and cannot do with property they legally purchased. And the court looked at it and said "no, you can't do that."
This is perfect for the digital world. Unfortunately, the courts have been highly inconsistent in applying this simple, clear principle to digital technology.
On the post: Germany's Speech Laws Continue To Be A Raging Dumpster Fire Of Censorial Stupidity
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>