What I find even more funny is that Jeff Bezos might end up in control of The Apprentice outtakes. I'm not real sure about all the legalese in the contracts, but imagining Trump shitting his pants because Bezos might release outtakes of him shitting his pants is kind of fun.
So which one are you? You claim you've told Koby directly you're not a leftist. Okay, so that's what you say you're not. Now tell us what you are .
It amazes me that some people are so short-sighted and stupid that they cannot even fathom that other people might not be simple mindless sheep (like themselves) and are able to contemplate important issues above and beyond which side of the aisle it came from.
I've been reading this site for well over 10 years and in my opinion, it is neither left nor right. Mike's opinions have always been based on logic and facts. I've seen him rip into both sides for stupid ideas and I've seen him praise both sides for good ideas.
With the way the Republicans are acting lately, I can sort of understand that opinions based on logic and facts would be considered a leftist thing these days.
Section 230 immunizes against the secondary harm caused by search engines amplifying sites who certainly don't discourage people from speaking bluntly.
You know what else "amplifies people speaking bluntly"? Microphones, megaphones and PA systems. Are you going to sue the manufacturers of those items too?
The parts of Section 230 that harm individuals or businesses are what needs to be fixed.
Distributor liability was well-recognized in the US (which is why 230 was passed), and still is in the rest of the world.
Um, no. That is not correct. Section 230 came about because we had conflicting rulings where one provider (Compuserve) was considered a newsstand and another (Prodigy) was considered a newspaper publisher with the only difference being that Prodigy moderated their users' content. So basically, if you moderated your users' content, you could be held liable for that content. Congress passed 230 because they wanted to encourage providers and platforms to moderate the content without fear of being held responsible for someone else's speech. Without 230, platforms would not be moderating their user's content or most likely, nobody would host user-generated content at all.
Making it so someone hating you on 4Chan can't google-bomb you to harm you in your daily life is not asking much.
Taking personal responsibility for your own actions isn't asking too much either. If you choose to piss someone off on 4Chan while using your real life credentials, that is pretty much on you, my friend.
Dominion is subject to extensive discovery as the suit proceeds.
Do you really think a company would bring a $1.3 million defamination lawsuit and not know that they would be subject to discovery? I really don't think Dominion is worried about that very much.
Of course, their machines are solely for the commission of election fraud, that evidence has been out for months.
Huh. I've never seen any evidence to support this. You know that things that somone's brother's barber's cousin might have seen are not really considered evidence, right?
Either mine doesn't or it's not enforced in residential areas
Most likely it isn't enforced for those stupid kid shaped "slow down" signs. I see those in my area too. A lot of the local laws covering this stuff have wording that says "within x amount of feet of a highway" or "within y amount of feet of a residential road", etc..
The reason I have reaseached this in the past is because it is a intersection of two things important to me: signage (which I make for a living) and the law (which I study as a hobby).
I have researched this subject in the past and this one should be overturned on appeal. It is most definitely protected speech to hold a sign saying "Cops Ahead".
The problem some other people have had in the past is when the sign is giving motorists some kind instruction, like "slow down". Most localities have laws to stop random people from putting up their own traffic signs (which makes sense) and those laws make signs with instructions to the motorists illegal and therefore not protect by the 1A.
That sucks for the soldiers, yes. But they chose to serve. Any lack of respect is a price they pay for their choice.
This article was talking about the Vietnam War era. The draft was in place until 1973. 2.2 million American men were drafted into the military between 1964 and 1973 to fight in Vietnam. They didn't "choose" to serve, it was mandated.
Stephen, I am curious as to what your stance is on gun control actually is. Do you advocate for a complete ban on guns across the board or is your stance more nuanced than that?
I am curious because it seems to me that WINE is basically a complete rebuild of the Windows API in order to translate it's native function calls into POSIX-compatible function calls.
Re: Re: except ATT/DirTV are NOT paying retransmission fees
We are quickly reaching the breaking point with media companies.
Yep. I've been a loyal DirectTV subscriber for 15 years now. Both the wife and I were employed by a local DirecTV installation company when we first got DirectTV and have been very happy with it up to shortly after AT&T bought them.
The first thing we noticed is that the quality of the customer service department went in the toilet. The second thing we noticed is the constant push from them to bundle our internet service and landline (which were already from AT&T) together with our DirecTV.
Now we have lost all of the CBS channels including our local broadcaster (which we pay an additional fee to have included). My wife asked if our bill will be prorated for the channels we are no longer receiving and AT&T has no interest in passing the money they are saving by not paying CBS to it's customers.
We are now looking into other options - SlingTV, Roku, etc. It only took AT&T a few years to turn loyal DirecTV subscribers into cordcutters.
No non-idiot business owner would give up revenue and lay off employees to avoid a higher tax rate. They might do other things such as change the corporate structure, play accounting games, or relocate or something.
Fair enough. I did think through some of those other examples too, but I wanted something simple as an example considering who I was responding to. The main point I was trying to get across is that any such system will be gamed somehow and I wanted to know how Blue would prevent that.
I haven't discounted this idea as something not worth exploring, but the devil would be in the details and all Blue can ever do is scream "TAX THE RICH!" without ever explaining how he would implement such a tax.
On the post: Now That Amazon Has Bought MGM, Will It Turn Against The Internet?
What I find even more funny is that Jeff Bezos might end up in control of The Apprentice outtakes. I'm not real sure about all the legalese in the contracts, but imagining Trump shitting his pants because Bezos might release outtakes of him shitting his pants is kind of fun.
On the post: Parler Was Allowed Back In The Apple App Store Because It Will Block 'Hate Speech,' But Only When Viewed Through Apple Devices
Re: Masnick, what are you on about now??
It amazes me that some people are so short-sighted and stupid that they cannot even fathom that other people might not be simple mindless sheep (like themselves) and are able to contemplate important issues above and beyond which side of the aisle it came from.
I've been reading this site for well over 10 years and in my opinion, it is neither left nor right. Mike's opinions have always been based on logic and facts. I've seen him rip into both sides for stupid ideas and I've seen him praise both sides for good ideas.
With the way the Republicans are acting lately, I can sort of understand that opinions based on logic and facts would be considered a leftist thing these days.
On the post: If There's A Defamatory Review On Yelp, Is It Google's Job To Hide It?
Re:
You know what else "amplifies people speaking bluntly"? Microphones, megaphones and PA systems. Are you going to sue the manufacturers of those items too?
Which parts are those, exactly? Have you actually read 47 U.S. Code ยง 230?
Um, no. That is not correct. Section 230 came about because we had conflicting rulings where one provider (Compuserve) was considered a newsstand and another (Prodigy) was considered a newspaper publisher with the only difference being that Prodigy moderated their users' content. So basically, if you moderated your users' content, you could be held liable for that content. Congress passed 230 because they wanted to encourage providers and platforms to moderate the content without fear of being held responsible for someone else's speech. Without 230, platforms would not be moderating their user's content or most likely, nobody would host user-generated content at all.
Taking personal responsibility for your own actions isn't asking too much either. If you choose to piss someone off on 4Chan while using your real life credentials, that is pretty much on you, my friend.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
Re: Re:
The real question is: If Trump says something in the woods and nobody is around, is it still considered lying?
On the post: James O'Keefe Sues Twitter For Defamation... For Shutting Down His Account
Just reading the link address in that sentence made me laugh.
On the post: Sidney Powell Asks Court To Dismiss Defamation Lawsuit Because She Was Just Engaging In Heated Hyperbole... Even When She Was Filing Lawsuits
Re: Schooling
Do you really think a company would bring a $1.3 million defamination lawsuit and not know that they would be subject to discovery? I really don't think Dominion is worried about that very much.
Huh. I've never seen any evidence to support this. You know that things that somone's brother's barber's cousin might have seen are not really considered evidence, right?
On the post: Utah Prematurely Tries To Dance On Section 230's Grave And Shows What Unconstitutional Garbage Will Follow If We Kill It
Re:
What the fuck are you talking about?
On the post: Former US Ambassador Sues Apple Because Telegram Users Are Making Him Feel Scared [Update]
What's next? Is he going to sue the entire internet and all computer manufacturers because Telegram is available as a desktop version?
Hey Vanna, can I buy a clue for this guy? If he dosen't want to see what is on Telegraph, DON'T OPEN THE FUCKING APP! This isn't rocket surgery.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Let go of my Knee, Jerk
I think everybody's sarcasm meter took a jolt last week.
On the post: While Social Media Was Quick To Highlight And Limit The Spread Of False Claims Of Election Victory, Traditional Media Just Let It Flow
Re: Let me get this straight
Aren't you supposed to see a doctor when your election lasts this long?
On the post: Federal Judge Ridiculously Says That Holding A Sign Telling People Cops Are Ahead Is Not Free Speech
Re: Re:
Most likely it isn't enforced for those stupid kid shaped "slow down" signs. I see those in my area too. A lot of the local laws covering this stuff have wording that says "within x amount of feet of a highway" or "within y amount of feet of a residential road", etc..
The reason I have reaseached this in the past is because it is a intersection of two things important to me: signage (which I make for a living) and the law (which I study as a hobby).
On the post: Federal Judge Ridiculously Says That Holding A Sign Telling People Cops Are Ahead Is Not Free Speech
I have researched this subject in the past and this one should be overturned on appeal. It is most definitely protected speech to hold a sign saying "Cops Ahead".
The problem some other people have had in the past is when the sign is giving motorists some kind instruction, like "slow down". Most localities have laws to stop random people from putting up their own traffic signs (which makes sense) and those laws make signs with instructions to the motorists illegal and therefore not protect by the 1A.
On the post: Attorney General To Law Enforcement Critics: Good Luck Getting A Cop When You Need One
Re:
This article was talking about the Vietnam War era. The draft was in place until 1973. 2.2 million American men were drafted into the military between 1964 and 1973 to fight in Vietnam. They didn't "choose" to serve, it was mandated.
I just wanted to clarify that point.
On the post: Google And Facebook Didn't Kill Newspapers: The Internet Did
Re: To True
Me too! I worry that ....um .....uh ....um .....what were we talking about again?
On the post: DOJ Using The FOSTA Playbook To Attack Encryption
Re:
Stephen, I am curious as to what your stance is on gun control actually is. Do you advocate for a complete ban on guns across the board or is your stance more nuanced than that?
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
Linux Wine?
Will this ruling affect WINE?
I am curious because it seems to me that WINE is basically a complete rebuild of the Windows API in order to translate it's native function calls into POSIX-compatible function calls.
On the post: Adland Shuts Down After Web Host Complies With Bullshit DMCA Notice
Re:
I won't admit that because it's completely wrong.
Like Tim said the entire point of Adland was to archive and comment on ads and that falls squarely within the Fair Use doctrine.
As an aside: Anyone else feeling a Streisandian urge to find the original ad to see what the fuss is all about?
On the post: Potentially Big News: Top CEOs Realizing That 'Maximizing Shareholder Value' Isn't A Great Idea
Typo
That typo almost seems Freudian.
On the post: Big Four Broadcasters Sue Streaming Video Provider Locast, Claim It's 'Aereo 2.0'
Re: Re: except ATT/DirTV are NOT paying retransmission fees
Yep. I've been a loyal DirectTV subscriber for 15 years now. Both the wife and I were employed by a local DirecTV installation company when we first got DirectTV and have been very happy with it up to shortly after AT&T bought them.
The first thing we noticed is that the quality of the customer service department went in the toilet. The second thing we noticed is the constant push from them to bundle our internet service and landline (which were already from AT&T) together with our DirecTV.
Now we have lost all of the CBS channels including our local broadcaster (which we pay an additional fee to have included). My wife asked if our bill will be prorated for the channels we are no longer receiving and AT&T has no interest in passing the money they are saving by not paying CBS to it's customers.
We are now looking into other options - SlingTV, Roku, etc. It only took AT&T a few years to turn loyal DirecTV subscribers into cordcutters.
On the post: The FTC And Facebook: Why The $5 Billion Fine Is Both Too Little And Too Much
Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. I did think through some of those other examples too, but I wanted something simple as an example considering who I was responding to. The main point I was trying to get across is that any such system will be gamed somehow and I wanted to know how Blue would prevent that.
I haven't discounted this idea as something not worth exploring, but the devil would be in the details and all Blue can ever do is scream "TAX THE RICH!" without ever explaining how he would implement such a tax.
Next >>