So go on, let's see if you can say anything not covered by that report. You're 0/1 so far. Well, 0/2 if we count the failed attempt at cultural appropriation.
Not if the antitrust suit is liable to be summarily dismissed thanks to provisions in 230. Which won't even be considered in this case, afaics, since the plaintiffs lack standing.
It's political posturing, not a real case. I may be wrong on the technicalities of the law, because I'm not legally qualified here let alone in the US, but I'm pretty sure about the 'not a real case' part. There is zero prospect of success. It will be dismissed on the first application - and if it isn't I'll print this post, roll it into a tight scroll, shove it up my arse, and post the video on Pornhub for those of you who like my hairy bumcheeks.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
"(A) 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; or"
Objectionable because the advertiser hasn't paid enough to hit top spot? Yup.
"Reform 230" has become some nonsense used by people who want Facebook and Google to base themselves outside the US - I think that's the point, it's the only effect their proposals will have - but that doesn't mean the legislation was perfectly drafted.
"we do not have the information needed to make decisions on where resources (money and time) should be spent"
FFS, that's the whole bloody point if opening it up to the market. Stop 'picking winners' and let competition sort it out. That way, every mistake costs money that people have a choice about investing.
"Not if you first have to pay them the money they are supposed to use to buy their food from you, no. That's...self-evident, even without Fogel and Engerman (from the link you provided) shooting holes in your assertion."
You load 16 tons, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don't call me, I can't go;
I owe my soul to the company sto'.
That was without slavery. You can get a man to do a long day's work for enough to support his family. That is, food, and shelter, and very little else - what slaves got. Unless he has alternatives that pay better, of course.
So you're going with the second option? Great, have fun, it's a very interesting load of history you're going to enjoy reading about. The Regency is a fascinating time. If nothing else, it puts paid to the idea that sexual freedom started in the 20th century and has been straight line growth from there.
If you have any responses to the actual arguments presented above [at 10.44 - someone else said the same thing as you first], feel free to respond there. Obviously I set out a framework rather than writing a comprehensive thesis, so tell me what you'd like me to explain further for you.
I hadn't heard that one before. We call it 'paying an on-the-spot fine'. A good thing to ask whether you can do, if you're not sure if you're bing shaken down :)
Your point re intake is basically the same point as indentives etc, seen from another bit of the vicious circle.
But you corrected me that it should be 'potential intake', given how much a buggered system will put good people off applying.
I mean, if we're talking bigger picture, you could solve the worst parts of the problem by just taking the bloody guns away from your police. We have a problem with racist police here in the UK, and we have a problem with the special units of armed police firing their guns pretty much every time they're sent out, but at least by separating the two we can see pretty clearly that, racist or not, police shouldn't be allowed guns except in extreme situations.
Racism was involved there, but not to a great degree. It was almost entirely explainable as 'you give police guns and they will fire them'. There are endless examples like that from round the world.
Just re-read this, and I would like to clarify the spectrum of which I referred to in terms of an opposite pole is that of slaveowners' evil, not of right or wrong. I think it should literally go without saying thatthese are shades of evil, but we're arguing on the internet, so...
That's a comforting but untrue explanation, as i explained above.
Unlike revisionism, this is based on facts, not different axioms.
If I were doing revisionism, I'd be arguing that the USA is a hoax, and so is your civil war (because that's fun nonsense). I can if you like; it'll demonstrate the difference between nuanced, academic history and revisionism.
I specifically addressed that argument. It is comforting to believe, but it just ain't true. Let's explore that argument-space a little more.
The Weimar Republic didn't, as is often claimed, get rid of its reparations through hyperinflation. The reparations were denominated in Gold Marks - a separate currency.
It's also indisputable that Germany, even with reparations, suffered less, economically, than some other (equally major) economies. The US, by many measures, had it worse. The US didn't go Nazi.
Obviously if your system is encouraging white supremacist takeover, you have a bigger problem than if you're 'only' getting institutional racism. But are they different problems, or the same problem at a different scale?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
I know this is a US-centred site, but here in the UK the alt-left reared its ugly head and got whack-a-mole*d recently.
(*I'm guessing in the US the games are called something to do with prairie dogs? They pop up and you hit them with a mallet.)
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/investigation-antisemitism-labo ur-party
So go on, let's see if you can say anything not covered by that report. You're 0/1 so far. Well, 0/2 if we count the failed attempt at cultural appropriation.
Re: Re:
Not if the antitrust suit is liable to be summarily dismissed thanks to provisions in 230. Which won't even be considered in this case, afaics, since the plaintiffs lack standing.
It's political posturing, not a real case. I may be wrong on the technicalities of the law, because I'm not legally qualified here let alone in the US, but I'm pretty sure about the 'not a real case' part. There is zero prospect of success. It will be dismissed on the first application - and if it isn't I'll print this post, roll it into a tight scroll, shove it up my arse, and post the video on Pornhub for those of you who like my hairy bumcheeks.
Re: Re:
No liability attaches to anyone.
"(2)Civil liability
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
"(A) 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; or"
Objectionable because the advertiser hasn't paid enough to hit top spot? Yup.
"Reform 230" has become some nonsense used by people who want Facebook and Google to base themselves outside the US - I think that's the point, it's the only effect their proposals will have - but that doesn't mean the legislation was perfectly drafted.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Salted and then hashed!
(untitled comment)
"we do not have the information needed to make decisions on where resources (money and time) should be spent"
FFS, that's the whole bloody point if opening it up to the market. Stop 'picking winners' and let competition sort it out. That way, every mistake costs money that people have a choice about investing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol of
P. P. S.
"Not if you first have to pay them the money they are supposed to use to buy their food from you, no. That's...self-evident, even without Fogel and Engerman (from the link you provided) shooting holes in your assertion."
That's why I mentioned company towns.
https://youtu.be/RRh0QiXyZSk
You load 16 tons, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don't call me, I can't go;
I owe my soul to the company sto'.
That was without slavery. You can get a man to do a long day's work for enough to support his family. That is, food, and shelter, and very little else - what slaves got. Unless he has alternatives that pay better, of course.
Re: Re: Re: Interesting
It's pretty fucking serious to attack people with absurd conspiratorial allegations because they're Jewish.
Suggesting that allegations of antisemitism, however obviously true, are incapable of being serious is a standard of the alt-left.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting
So you're going with the second option? Great, have fun, it's a very interesting load of history you're going to enjoy reading about. The Regency is a fascinating time. If nothing else, it puts paid to the idea that sexual freedom started in the 20th century and has been straight line growth from there.
https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-7 4949;jsessionid=E15944BA8B41C36A1CF19ADB9AED28B9
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: States' rights?
If you have any responses to the actual arguments presented above [at 10.44 - someone else said the same thing as you first], feel free to respond there. Obviously I set out a framework rather than writing a comprehensive thesis, so tell me what you'd like me to explain further for you.
Re: Re:
There is a law against it, but they benefit from acting unlawfully.
I mean, have you really never learnt about 'criminals' and 'breaking the law'? :)
Re: Re: Interesting
Oh, nice work. No-one can accuse you of being a neo, because you've picked the Catholics instead of the Jews.
Or do you just know the square root of fuck all about C18 England?
Re: Interesting
Because the dea prefers pursuing actual criminals, rather than doing neo-Nazis' work for them. (Ok, lol at the first part.)
The Sacklers are Jewish. That's the only thing they've done wrong, outside your alt-left rabbit hole.
Re: Re: Asset Forfeiture Doesn't Reduce Crime
I hadn't heard that one before. We call it 'paying an on-the-spot fine'. A good thing to ask whether you can do, if you're not sure if you're bing shaken down :)
(untitled comment)
So is the point here that even Mad Mike Masnick* can't keep clear which side if the 230 debate he's on? This case is due for summary dismissal, ffs.
The plaintiffs lack standing, but in any case it's expressly permitted behaviour thanks to 230. As it bloody well shoukd be.
[*I assume Mike knows who Mad Mike Magee is, and that the name is a compliment for any tech journalist. Taliskers all round!]
(untitled comment)
Sure. This story is completely credible. No-one else ever tried that one...
It's just an undisprovable defence which Dutch prosecutors were happy to accept given the prosecution was probably not in the public interest anyway.
It's clear he did guess the password, but it obviously wasn't quite that easy to guess. The story is true apart from what the password actually was.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your point re intake is basically the same point as indentives etc, seen from another bit of the vicious circle.
But you corrected me that it should be 'potential intake', given how much a buggered system will put good people off applying.
I mean, if we're talking bigger picture, you could solve the worst parts of the problem by just taking the bloody guns away from your police. We have a problem with racist police here in the UK, and we have a problem with the special units of armed police firing their guns pretty much every time they're sent out, but at least by separating the two we can see pretty clearly that, racist or not, police shouldn't be allowed guns except in extreme situations.
Fwiw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Harry_Stanley
Racism was involved there, but not to a great degree. It was almost entirely explainable as 'you give police guns and they will fire them'. There are endless examples like that from round the world.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For starters, the flag is the symbol of
Just re-read this, and I would like to clarify the spectrum of which I referred to in terms of an opposite pole is that of slaveowners' evil, not of right or wrong. I think it should literally go without saying thatthese are shades of evil, but we're arguing on the internet, so...
Re: Re: Re: Re: States' rights?
That's a comforting but untrue explanation, as i explained above.
Unlike revisionism, this is based on facts, not different axioms.
If I were doing revisionism, I'd be arguing that the USA is a hoax, and so is your civil war (because that's fun nonsense). I can if you like; it'll demonstrate the difference between nuanced, academic history and revisionism.
Re: Re: Re: Re: States' rights?
I specifically addressed that argument. It is comforting to believe, but it just ain't true. Let's explore that argument-space a little more.
The Weimar Republic didn't, as is often claimed, get rid of its reparations through hyperinflation. The reparations were denominated in Gold Marks - a separate currency.
It's also indisputable that Germany, even with reparations, suffered less, economically, than some other (equally major) economies. The US, by many measures, had it worse. The US didn't go Nazi.
http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/economics/history/paper56/56dimsdale.pdf
Do you remember differential equations from school? Hitler is the factor that doesn't cancel our.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's part of 'the incentives they face'.
Obviously if your system is encouraging white supremacist takeover, you have a bigger problem than if you're 'only' getting institutional racism. But are they different problems, or the same problem at a different scale?
More comments from davedave >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by davedave.
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