"... are inappropriate for children (which is less than 1.5% of YouTube's users)... "
doesn't make any sense. Frankly I have not idea how anyone could even think that number is realistic. You mean to say that within the US (330,000,000 People) that only 2 million children look at YouTube. MIKE.. THAT is BULLSHIT.
I read the article in the WSJ. There was more to his argument than you let on .. but you are a publisher and can say anything you want.
The numbers that get bounced around are ALL garbage and anyone can make those made up numbers to make a point.
The real issue is does Tweeter, YouTube, etc want to be PUBLISHERS and be responsible for what is seen or not seen or do they want the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to protect them. I really don't see how they can have it both ways.
I really don't care what the hell Prager, AOC, Alex Jones and all the other IDIOT brain dead excrement want to say. But when some claims 203 and at the same time says that a video of a threats of to a Senator can't be posted .. your REALLY have to believe that there is something screwed up. It was only after a bunch of Republicans and Democrats that are now investigating the likes of YouTube; that YouTube "claimed after multiple appeals from affected parties," they "reviewed this case more closely." That is publishing.. all the news that we think you should see until we get called on it.
What about a little guy like me... I am quite sure that any video threats directed at me that I posted on YouTube would be banned .. well just because I'm not a Senator or member of Congress and some little ass-wipe in California doesn't like it because I think something different from whatever the ass-wipe thinks I should think or believe.
They are publishers or 203.. not both ways.. Too simple.
Censorship is when the Government is restricting the view of material. Think Iran, North Korea, China. Anyone can go to any WB site as they wish. (Type in the URL and pesto.. Magic).
Authors are not obligated to list in a bibliography every book ever published on a topic they are discussing. They are free to make their own determination on whatever factors they deem relevant.
Website owners do NOT a constitutional right that others must direct them to their sites nor should Google be forced to display links that just cause them bogus problems.
Google is under no legal requirement to display any link; MPAA and RIAA think they should be able to hide sites they don't like; why can't Google hide links that just make useless and baseless claims against them.
I would rather make life difficult for those that want to use the Web for their own marketing purposes and want the Federal Government to punish others if/when they "property rights" are violated; yet use their legal power to make stupid work and bogus claims.
Good grief, if I was Jeff Bezos and I got a take down notice indirectly from WB regarding material they TOLD me to post, I would stop sales of all WB products immediately. I might refer customers to other sites, but I think WB needs Amazon more than Amazon needs WB.
Let Kevin Tsujihara (CEO of WB) start taking ownership and responsibility for his organization and any lost sales because of just incompetence or criminal styles of management styles.
I like your idea.. but how about Google tells WB that there has been repeated claims about its sites violating US Copyright and until the matter is resolved, ALL searches that direct to any of WB's sites (including subsidiaries and associated production companies) will be filtered and blocked until further notice.
"It is far easier for Google to just block owners of sites that make repeated false referencing claims until such time as the owner of all such false claims clean up their act, including compensation to Google for processing false claims and documentation as to how they will minimize false claims in the future.
Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2015 @ 6:29pm Can we kill these people?
Not legally. There is legal protection (EPA) for Snail Darters, various bats, foxes,a type of Florida Lichen ., and whorpacens. Whorpacens are evolved Lichens that is/are a composite organism that arises from symbiotic relationship betwee Whores and PACs.
I'm not aware the Thomas Jefferson ever took up arms to fight the original revolution. But I'm willing to bet that he would this time.
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125
"We invade their country, break their moral laws, force a new style of government on them, kill their family members, bomb their homes, kill their leaders, meddle in their affairs and generally speaking treat them like crap by acting like some crusading hero." That is just so stupid.. so inane.. so lacking in any historical knowledge. You could only write this as an AC.
"care to counter his argument with some facts of your own? or just say that 1 statement and expect people to believe you versus the evidence in his statement"
" The Western countries invaded Iran went they violated their UN Treaty by invading Kuwait. Once defeated, Iran repeatedly violated a truce/peace treaty The US enforced the treaty by removing the government that would not observed the UN sanctions. In the process, the general territory of the area called Iraq, needed a new government as the overthrown one, was tyrannical and not based on any rule of law. In the process of enforcing the treaty, government officials that did not surrender were eventually killed as they continued to lead an armed response to military forces charged to enforcing the agreement. In any military action, local residents that harbored, supported or otherwise provided aid to combatants were impacted including death of them or their family. As in any case in war, some "innocent" bystanders were also killed or wounded. The people were allowed to get together and design a framework to replace their tyrant government that existed before. There were national elections for vote for a constitutional government. Once the new government was in place, it failed. Given the immaturity of the people on self government and the total lack of any sense of nationhood this was the only reasonable expectation.
Anarchy has replaced the "new" government, as most of the citizens are are unable to find any way to take control of their country from various invasions of cults and home grown sects. The anarchy as created even more destruction, death and wounding that any one of the previous western nation actions. The anarchy is now overflowing into other "countries" in the area.
The United Nations invaded Iran when they invaded Kuwait. The "Leader" of Iran violated the peace treaty. FACT! (you might want to debate whether the US should have re-invade based on the violations.) (The French didn't push back on the Germans when they violated the Treaty of Versailles by moving German troops moved into the Rhineland. They had some fun 4 years later.) In war, burning fields and villages and otherwise destroying artifacts of human presence has been almost the very definition of War for the last 3000+ years. That is why most people don't like war.. it is meant to the last straw.
What is basically forgotten is the "Esteemed Leader" of Iraq caused the the initial problem. When their Esteemed Leader starts screwing around with other countries and their allies (UN) and pisses them off by severe violations their Treaties (UN membership) .. the country does't get to vote much any more.
Sort of like, if you murder my wife, and are convicted by the court, you don't get to declare your own moral codes nor expect that you live your life like you did before.
As to breaking their moral laws, I don't know what the crap that means. But to suggest that ISIL is acting on some moral code that can be allowed to exist is just beyond the pale. ISIL is a bunch of mentally defective aka infected with some rabies-like virus that needs to be cleansed from humanity. Ebola, HIV, and ISIL are just complete and deadly diseases that the world must expunge. I am not sure what AC meant by moral law.. like stoning woman adulterer? Like killing gays? If they want that as their legal code, I suppose I might let them get with their own program. But I sure as crap don't want to have that debate with my next door neighbor in the US. It might work for them.. but that has NOT been proven as they have have had no viable self-government in 1500 years let alone that last 200 years. But I'm pretty sure that that regardless of what their constitution says, they can/will stone adulterers like the some Indians continue practicing SATI (widow burning).
If you want to move on to Afghanistan... an area without a country.. then let's move on..
If and when any religious moral code allows, supports and encourages the "punishment" of offenders outside of their borders, then by ANY definition, that is an act of war; with all it attributes. No moral code enforcement that violates an individual's natural rights can be allowed to span national borders. No individual, sect, or viral infected individuals can cross national borders without expecting international impact including war or other equivalent response.
As to Citizens or residents that harbor, support or otherwise cloth, feed, or provide comfort to their warrior class, well, they are liable. They HAVE to be. Is it okay to bomb the quartermaster but not the farmer that is bringing the food? Is it okay to bomb the armored trucks that delivery the weapons, but not the local sailor that landed them? Is it okay to bomb the military accountant, but not the people that deliver the money. If so, lets get rid of the middle man, aka targets. But we still have all those "locals" making/allowing/supporting it. They are the "problem". In the best case, too primitive and naive to understand or care about the implications, but more likely, fully aware of the ethics involved.
And if you think the citizens are too timid, stupid, scared or uneducated to take control and put their government back into some World wide accepted box, then I would suggest they are probably too weak, uneducated, and timid to define their own government and make it work. Ideas are not enough for a government. Africa proves that. Countries must have a citizen base that will FIGHT and KILL to make those ideas real. In the end, the historical ignorant administrations of both Bush and Obama thought that free elections would work in Iraq and Afganistan. That was/is just plan stupid as most of those people do NOT have any experience in self government and two, there is no sense of unity within the community to be governed. (US Revolution worked, French/Russian/USSR failed)
As to "meddle in their affairs".. we have to agree that the society/culture was a failure because their leader, which they provided support for the Iraq invasion or otherwise harbored groups that created acts of war (bombing). I will "Meddle in the Affairs" of anyone that supported or otherwise allowed violation MY definition of Natural rights for me, my family or my community .. like the right to life.
Yes... My Natural Rights are supported by the UN. Anyone tool that thinks they can come into a country for unilateral retribution is creating an act of war. Any country that harbors, supports or otherwise encourages that behavior is an Allied. They own the implications of the acts. The leadership of those countries are responsible is and MUST be prepared for an appropriate response. The CITIZENS/Residents are ultimately responsible. They can NOT get / have a get out of War card.
Until cross section people / citizens (National or whatever term for the geographical area are willing to FIGHT and DIE for a rule of law aka government it will not stick. It will be expropriated by some tyrant. The US Revolution only worked when the Tories went back to the UK or Canada and all the colonies banded together for what was a touch and go for 15 years.
And to treating them like crap.. that is just "crap". The last 30 years of war by the Western powers (excluding Russia and the third world countries of likes of the Balkans) has wasted too much money and their own military's lives protecting the "not so innocent" local citizens. And given they are part of the problem, meaning they were aiding and supporting regimes (aka governments) whose behavior was the justification for a call to war, they were treated better than almost ANY conquered people in history.
I could go on.. but I don't have much time for naive, ignorant, and "the West is Evil" infected individuals.
"We invade their country, break their moral laws, force a new style of government on them, kill their family members, bomb their homes, kill their leaders, meddle in their affairs and generally speaking treat them like crap by acting like some crusading hero."
That is just so stupid.. so inane.. so lacking in any historical knowledge. You could only write this as an AC.
Mike, you lost me
"... are inappropriate for children (which is less than 1.5% of YouTube's users)... "
doesn't make any sense. Frankly I have not idea how anyone could even think that number is realistic. You mean to say that within the US (330,000,000 People) that only 2 million children look at YouTube. MIKE.. THAT is BULLSHIT.
I read the article in the WSJ. There was more to his argument than you let on .. but you are a publisher and can say anything you want.
The numbers that get bounced around are ALL garbage and anyone can make those made up numbers to make a point.
The real issue is does Tweeter, YouTube, etc want to be PUBLISHERS and be responsible for what is seen or not seen or do they want the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to protect them. I really don't see how they can have it both ways.
I really don't care what the hell Prager, AOC, Alex Jones and all the other IDIOT brain dead excrement want to say. But when some claims 203 and at the same time says that a video of a threats of to a Senator can't be posted .. your REALLY have to believe that there is something screwed up. It was only after a bunch of Republicans and Democrats that are now investigating the likes of YouTube; that YouTube "claimed after multiple appeals from affected parties," they "reviewed this case more closely." That is publishing.. all the news that we think you should see until we get called on it.
What about a little guy like me... I am quite sure that any video threats directed at me that I posted on YouTube would be banned .. well just because I'm not a Senator or member of Congress and some little ass-wipe in California doesn't like it because I think something different from whatever the ass-wipe thinks I should think or believe.
They are publishers or 203.. not both ways.. Too simple.
Re: Re: Re: @Ninja.
Authors are not obligated to list in a bibliography every book ever published on a topic they are discussing. They are free to make their own determination on whatever factors they deem relevant.
Website owners do NOT a constitutional right that others must direct them to their sites nor should Google be forced to display links that just cause them bogus problems.
Google is under no legal requirement to display any link; MPAA and RIAA think they should be able to hide sites they don't like; why can't Google hide links that just make useless and baseless claims against them.
I would rather make life difficult for those that want to use the Web for their own marketing purposes and want the Federal Government to punish others if/when they "property rights" are violated; yet use their legal power to make stupid work and bogus claims.
Good grief, if I was Jeff Bezos and I got a take down notice indirectly from WB regarding material they TOLD me to post, I would stop sales of all WB products immediately. I might refer customers to other sites, but I think WB needs Amazon more than Amazon needs WB.
Let Kevin Tsujihara (CEO of WB) start taking ownership and responsibility for his organization and any lost sales because of just incompetence or criminal styles of management styles.
Re: @Ninja.
"It is far easier for Google to just block owners of sites that make repeated false referencing claims until such time as the owner of all such false claims clean up their act, including compensation to Google for processing false claims and documentation as to how they will minimize false claims in the future.
Re:
Can we kill these people?
Not legally. There is legal protection (EPA) for Snail Darters, various bats, foxes,a type of Florida Lichen ., and whorpacens. Whorpacens are evolved Lichens that is/are a composite organism that arises from symbiotic relationship betwee Whores and PACs.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen for better understanding of their cousin.
Re: Time
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125
Tom, we miss you
Re: Re: Re: Who the fuck are we to decide what's 'right'?
"We invade their country, break their moral laws, force a new style of government on them, kill their family members, bomb their homes, kill their leaders, meddle in their affairs and generally speaking treat them like crap by acting like some crusading hero."
That is just so stupid.. so inane.. so lacking in any historical knowledge. You could only write this as an AC.
"care to counter his argument with some facts of your own? or just say that 1 statement and expect people to believe you versus the evidence in his statement"
" The Western countries invaded Iran went they violated their UN Treaty by invading Kuwait. Once defeated, Iran repeatedly violated a truce/peace treaty The US enforced the treaty by removing the government that would not observed the UN sanctions. In the process, the general territory of the area called Iraq, needed a new government as the overthrown one, was tyrannical and not based on any rule of law. In the process of enforcing the treaty, government officials that did not surrender were eventually killed as they continued to lead an armed response to military forces charged to enforcing the agreement.
In any military action, local residents that harbored, supported or otherwise provided aid to combatants were impacted including death of them or their family. As in any case in war, some "innocent" bystanders were also killed or wounded.
The people were allowed to get together and design a framework to replace their tyrant government that existed before. There were national elections for vote for a constitutional government. Once the new government was in place, it failed. Given the immaturity of the people on self government and the total lack of any sense of nationhood this was the only reasonable expectation.
Anarchy has replaced the "new" government, as most of the citizens are are unable to find any way to take control of their country from various invasions of cults and home grown sects. The anarchy as created even more destruction, death and wounding that any one of the previous western nation actions. The anarchy is now overflowing into other "countries" in the area.
The United Nations invaded Iran when they invaded Kuwait. The "Leader" of Iran violated the peace treaty. FACT! (you might want to debate whether the US should have re-invade based on the violations.) (The French didn't push back on the Germans when they violated the Treaty of Versailles by moving German troops moved into the Rhineland. They had some fun 4 years later.)
In war, burning fields and villages and otherwise destroying artifacts of human presence has been almost the very definition of War for the last 3000+ years. That is why most people don't like war.. it is meant to the last straw.
What is basically forgotten is the "Esteemed Leader" of Iraq caused the the initial problem. When their Esteemed Leader starts screwing around with other countries and their allies (UN) and pisses them off by severe violations their Treaties (UN membership) .. the country does't get to vote much any more.
Sort of like, if you murder my wife, and are convicted by the court, you don't get to declare your own moral codes nor expect that you live your life like you did before.
As to breaking their moral laws, I don't know what the crap that means. But to suggest that ISIL is acting on some moral code that can be allowed to exist is just beyond the pale. ISIL is a bunch of mentally defective aka infected with some rabies-like virus that needs to be cleansed from humanity. Ebola, HIV, and ISIL are just complete and deadly diseases that the world must expunge. I am not sure what AC meant by moral law.. like stoning woman adulterer? Like killing gays? If they want that as their legal code, I suppose I might let them get with their own program. But I sure as crap don't want to have that debate with my next door neighbor in the US. It might work for them.. but that has NOT been proven as they have have had no viable self-government in 1500 years let alone that last 200 years. But I'm pretty sure that that regardless of what their constitution says, they can/will stone adulterers like the some Indians continue practicing SATI (widow burning).
If you want to move on to Afghanistan... an area without a country.. then let's move on..
If and when any religious moral code allows, supports and encourages the "punishment" of offenders outside of their borders, then by ANY definition, that is an act of war; with all it attributes. No moral code enforcement that violates an individual's natural rights can be allowed to span national borders. No individual, sect, or viral infected individuals can cross national borders without expecting international impact including war or other equivalent response.
As to Citizens or residents that harbor, support or otherwise cloth, feed, or provide comfort to their warrior class, well, they are liable. They HAVE to be. Is it okay to bomb the quartermaster but not the farmer that is bringing the food? Is it okay to bomb the armored trucks that delivery the weapons, but not the local sailor that landed them? Is it okay to bomb the military accountant, but not the people that deliver the money. If so, lets get rid of the middle man, aka targets. But we still have all those "locals" making/allowing/supporting it. They are the "problem". In the best case, too primitive and naive to understand or care about the implications, but more likely, fully aware of the ethics involved.
And if you think the citizens are too timid, stupid, scared or uneducated to take control and put their government back into some World wide accepted box, then I would suggest they are probably too weak, uneducated, and timid to define their own government and make it work. Ideas are not enough for a government. Africa proves that. Countries must have a citizen base that will FIGHT and KILL to make those ideas real. In the end, the historical ignorant administrations of both Bush and Obama thought that free elections would work in Iraq and Afganistan. That was/is just plan stupid as most of those people do NOT have any experience in self government and two, there is no sense of unity within the community to be governed. (US Revolution worked, French/Russian/USSR failed)
As to "meddle in their affairs".. we have to agree that the society/culture was a failure because their leader, which they provided support for the Iraq invasion or otherwise harbored groups that created acts of war (bombing). I will "Meddle in the Affairs" of anyone that supported or otherwise allowed violation MY definition of Natural rights for me, my family or my community .. like the right to life.
Yes... My Natural Rights are supported by the UN. Anyone tool that thinks they can come into a country for unilateral retribution is creating an act of war. Any country that harbors, supports or otherwise encourages that behavior is an Allied. They own the implications of the acts. The leadership of those countries are responsible is and MUST be prepared for an appropriate response. The CITIZENS/Residents are ultimately responsible. They can NOT get / have a get out of War card.
Until cross section people / citizens (National or whatever term for the geographical area are willing to FIGHT and DIE for a rule of law aka government it will not stick. It will be expropriated by some tyrant. The US Revolution only worked when the Tories went back to the UK or Canada and all the colonies banded together for what was a touch and go for 15 years.
And to treating them like crap.. that is just "crap".
The last 30 years of war by the Western powers (excluding Russia and the third world countries of likes of the Balkans) has wasted too much money and their own military's lives protecting the "not so innocent" local citizens. And given they are part of the problem, meaning they were aiding and supporting regimes (aka governments) whose behavior was the justification for a call to war, they were treated better than almost ANY conquered people in history.
I could go on.. but I don't have much time for naive, ignorant, and "the West is Evil" infected individuals.
Re: Who the fuck are we to decide what's 'right'?
That is just so stupid.. so inane.. so lacking in any historical knowledge. You could only write this as an AC.
Actually.. that "Senior Law Official" has a point..
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by AN69.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt