GoldenEye would be nice, but I doubt it will ever happen with all the licensing and rights issues going on with that. Also if they don't fix the emulation issues, multiplayer (the only reason most would have to play it) would be a mess. I was somewhat excited for Ocarina of Time, But since I already own it on multiple platforms (N64, GameCube, 3DS), I'll just wait until I get my Steam Deck and play it in an emulator.
This is a stupid idea that needs to be taken out to a deserted field in the middle of nowhere, beaten to death with a baseball bat, buried in a shallow grave, and never spoken of again. If implemented it will not end well. In repressive regimes it will be cracking down on anti-government materials, here in the US it will be tracking down those pesky terrorists, and everywhere will have copyright holders needing to protect their precious, precious intellectual property.
The author is assuming that lawmakers don't know what the section 230 fence is keeping out. This is incorrect-- they absolutely do know-- they just want to be able to force service providers to either take down content they don't like or leave up content that they do in violation of the 1st amendment.
Good job completely ignoring the fact that one set of protesters was angry about you know...all the murders committed by the people they are angry about, and the other is angry that their orange wanna be king lost an election.
The sad truth is that these sanctions only really hurt their legal careers--but since they've chosen the new career of being MAGA-hat wearing conspiracy spreaders, they can grift that gravy train as long as anyone will listen to them.
The deal said that Dish would have "up to three years to complete the migration".
I mean c'mon, technically one day could be included in "up to three years", so I don't know what they're bitching about.
Just need to program an AI to scrape patent databases, train it to add " on the internet" or "with a computer" in the correct places, file the patents, then sit back and collect the royalties.
Umm...you do know that the 1st amendment only covers actions by state actors (the government) not private entities, right? So explain to us how a privately owned social media company can violate the 1st amendment. So yes a private company can remove your speech, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to them--you know that whole...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That's it, that's the 1st amendment. I don't see how you can twist some very clear wording to think that this applies anyone other than those it says it applies to--congress. Nowhere in there is any text saying that any private entity has to give you a place to speak.
Social Media sites, like any other private property retain the right to throw you out for saying or doing things they don't like. Don't want to get thrown out--don't be an asshole. pretty simple rule.
Is Twitch still running ads on her channel? I'd be willing to bet they are. If they are they're profiting off their creators and not paying them for their work, which in any other industry would be an illegal contact violation.
I've come to the realization that the problem that they have with social media is that all their lies are almost immediately called out. They've never had to deal with that before. Mainstream media has usually bent over backwards to not call them out on their lies due to the risk of being cut off.
The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
Hmm... Looks like the Supreme Court and I are on the same page to me.
If you knowingly let those whackjobs discuss their massacre you are very much liable both criminally and civily. Which it seems is what Parker was reporting to the FBI, posts calling for violence that were reported by other users.
Umm how not? Any speech that is calling for or planning violence is not protected under the first amendment. It doesn't matter how it's distributed -- in person, in a book, through the mail, on the phone, a flyer, a social media post, a YouTube video, or bloody smoke signals -- it's illegal. Speech that is illegal is illegal, regardless of the method of distribution.
"Violent content" in this case refers to posts calling for and planning a violent protest, which is very much illegal and not protected speech under the first amendment. Not taking it down and reporting it to the authorities would leave Parker open to criminal charges from the government and potential civil liability from anyone harmed.
Nope, not a theory. Cryptocurrency mining consumes a ton of electricity, contributing to climate change. Plus it burns through a lot of computer hardware that we now have to dispose of.
On the post: Rockstar's GTA Retro Games Was Completely Broken And Support Was Ghosting Everyone
Be willing to bet that those filthy pirates had zero problems playing any of those games.
On the post: Nintendo's YouTube Video For Its Switch Online Upgrade Is Its Most Hated Video Ever
Re:
GoldenEye would be nice, but I doubt it will ever happen with all the licensing and rights issues going on with that. Also if they don't fix the emulation issues, multiplayer (the only reason most would have to play it) would be a mess. I was somewhat excited for Ocarina of Time, But since I already own it on multiple platforms (N64, GameCube, 3DS), I'll just wait until I get my Steam Deck and play it in an emulator.
On the post: The Internet Is Not Facebook; Regulating It As If It Were Will Fuck Things Up
Meanwhile, the ghouls over at fox news continue spreading lies and no one in Congress says nothing.
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: Re: How they got Trump
Of course not. He follows the number one rule of grifters: Never, ever invest your own money in the grift.
On the post: Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments
This is a stupid idea that needs to be taken out to a deserted field in the middle of nowhere, beaten to death with a baseball bat, buried in a shallow grave, and never spoken of again. If implemented it will not end well. In repressive regimes it will be cracking down on anti-government materials, here in the US it will be tracking down those pesky terrorists, and everywhere will have copyright holders needing to protect their precious, precious intellectual property.
On the post: The Rule Of Fences, And Why Congress Needs To Temper Its Appetite To Undermine Internet Service Provider Liability Protection
An incorrect assumption.
The author is assuming that lawmakers don't know what the section 230 fence is keeping out. This is incorrect-- they absolutely do know-- they just want to be able to force service providers to either take down content they don't like or leave up content that they do in violation of the 1st amendment.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Time to change your wording
Good job completely ignoring the fact that one set of protesters was angry about you know...all the murders committed by the people they are angry about, and the other is angry that their orange wanna be king lost an election.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
The Unfortunate Reality
The sad truth is that these sanctions only really hurt their legal careers--but since they've chosen the new career of being MAGA-hat wearing conspiracy spreaders, they can grift that gravy train as long as anyone will listen to them.
On the post: California Regulators Say T-Mobile Lied To Gain Sprint Merger Approval
Here's their mistake
On the post: Australian Court Ridiculously Says That AI Can Be An Inventor, Get Patents
Ima gonna make meeliions
Just need to program an AI to scrape patent databases, train it to add " on the internet" or "with a computer" in the correct places, file the patents, then sit back and collect the royalties.
On the post: As Everyone Rushes To Change Section 230, New GAO Report Points Out That FOSTA Hasn't Lived Up To Any Of Its Promises
Re: What Section 230 Does Not Protect
Umm...you do know that the 1st amendment only covers actions by state actors (the government) not private entities, right? So explain to us how a privately owned social media company can violate the 1st amendment. So yes a private company can remove your speech, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to them--you know that whole...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That's it, that's the 1st amendment. I don't see how you can twist some very clear wording to think that this applies anyone other than those it says it applies to--congress. Nowhere in there is any text saying that any private entity has to give you a place to speak.
Social Media sites, like any other private property retain the right to throw you out for saying or doing things they don't like. Don't want to get thrown out--don't be an asshole. pretty simple rule.
On the post: Twitch Yanks Advertising Revenue From Popular 'Hot Tub Streamer' With No Warning Or Dialogue
The 50,000 dollar question.
Is Twitch still running ads on her channel? I'd be willing to bet they are. If they are they're profiting off their creators and not paying them for their work, which in any other industry would be an illegal contact violation.
On the post: How Do You Debate Section 230 When One Side Constantly Lies About It?
I've come to the realization that the problem that they have with social media is that all their lies are almost immediately called out. They've never had to deal with that before. Mainstream media has usually bent over backwards to not call them out on their lies due to the risk of being cut off.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re: Getting called a Nazi...
Which is what happens when you align yourself with white supremacists and Nazis.
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
Hmm... Looks like the Supreme Court and I are on the same page to me.
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you knowingly let those whackjobs discuss their massacre you are very much liable both criminally and civily. Which it seems is what Parker was reporting to the FBI, posts calling for violence that were reported by other users.
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Re: Re:
Umm how not? Any speech that is calling for or planning violence is not protected under the first amendment. It doesn't matter how it's distributed -- in person, in a book, through the mail, on the phone, a flyer, a social media post, a YouTube video, or bloody smoke signals -- it's illegal. Speech that is illegal is illegal, regardless of the method of distribution.
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Re: Re: Re:
They could be held liable by anyone harmed by the violence that was called for and planned in those posts.l
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Re:
"Violent content" in this case refers to posts calling for and planning a violent protest, which is very much illegal and not protected speech under the first amendment. Not taking it down and reporting it to the authorities would leave Parker open to criminal charges from the government and potential civil liability from anyone harmed.
On the post: Annoyance Builds At Elon Musk Getting A Billion In Subsidies For Starlink Broadband
Re: Re:
Nope, not a theory. Cryptocurrency mining consumes a ton of electricity, contributing to climate change. Plus it burns through a lot of computer hardware that we now have to dispose of.
Next >>