HARWOOD: Speaking of trying to avoid the dangers of the bubble, you still got one of these in your pocket?
Pres.-elect OBAMA: You know, I actually took it out as a consequence of this interview, but I'm still clinging to my BlackBerry. They're going to pry it out of my hands.
HARWOOD: Well, are you, in fact, going to overcome this idea as anachronistic that presidents can't use the most modern...
Pres.-elect OBAMA: Well, here's what I think I can get. I think I'm going to be able to get access to a computer somewhere. It may not be right in the Oval Office. The second thing I'm hoping to do is to see if there's someway that we can arrange for me to continue to have access to a BlackBerry. I know that...
If the press has put all of the relevant facts into an article why couldn't everyone who reads it determine what the truth is?
Why is it that the journalist is somehow specially qualified to be able to just pull the absolute truth out of a set of perhaps unclear facts? Are they gifted with some kind of mind reading that lets them say with certainty that what someone says is not what they are thinking?
What if two reporters both use these powers of truth determination to figure out what the truth is and their stories conflict? Which one am I to believe? They have both moved beyond the facts and told me what the truth is while leaving out any sense of of the other side's "truth".
The view from nowhere was specifically adopted to avoid these issues and let people figure out who is more likely to be full of shit.
I would say it was right around the time that the courts ruled that the President cannot block people of twitter due to it being an important means of political communication.
I thought it was Seth Rich when it happened and still think it was Seth Rich.
You only needed to read the things he was writing in the months before he died to figure it out. He was talking about how he was really excited to start working with the Democratic party and thought he was going to be a force for positive change. Then how he began to become deeply disappointed after finding some shit out about the things the party was doing.
Then he goes dark for a while, the leaks happen and he turns up dead. Then Julian Assange offers a $25,000 reward for info on his killers.
The ICE wants him deported because he is a criminal who was convicted of "conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud" for his part in the theft of about half a million dollars from his company and served 3 years in prison for it. He was given a final order of removal in 2007, and has been dodging that through the legal system for 9 years.
It's not like this is some kind of baseless attack on him because of his beliefs, and it's not a new thing.
>assert Title I jurisdiction over internet traffic
On January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court determined in the case of Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, that The court vacated two parts of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, determining that the FCC did not have the authority to impose these orders without classifying network providers as common carriers. Since the FCC had previously classified broadband providers as "information services" and not "telecommunications services," they could not be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Therefore, the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 regulations, which could only be applied to common carriers, could not be applied to broadband providers.
According to the courts, there is no such thing as Title I jurisdiction over internet traffic. At least not that can be forced on the ISPs.
Net Neutrality Is important, but it's relatively minor when held up to concerns like "what do we do if NK launches a nuke at us", which is also under the purview of the executive branch.
I theory, but the FTC is much more restricted in what it can do. Especially if they have common carrier removed.
The whole reason that the courts made them use Title II on the ISPs was because they said that the government have no authority to regulate their internal business practices unless they are a common carrier.
This is especially weird considering that PUBG is not the first entrant to this category of games. They in fact rode in on the coat tails of the success of H1Z1 Battle Royal, taking a portion of H1Z1s player base when they released.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by DiscontentedMajority.
Re: Re: The best hope is no hope?
No, Big company powerful, must regulate keep in check.
Re: "But I don't wanna!"
HARWOOD: Speaking of trying to avoid the dangers of the bubble, you still got one of these in your pocket?
Pres.-elect OBAMA: You know, I actually took it out as a consequence of this interview, but I'm still clinging to my BlackBerry. They're going to pry it out of my hands.
HARWOOD: Well, are you, in fact, going to overcome this idea as anachronistic that presidents can't use the most modern...
Pres.-elect OBAMA: Well, here's what I think I can get. I think I'm going to be able to get access to a computer somewhere. It may not be right in the Oval Office. The second thing I'm hoping to do is to see if there's someway that we can arrange for me to continue to have access to a BlackBerry. I know that...
Online disinformation efforts?
I'm pretty sure if a corporation did this same thing it would be labeled a "promotional campaign" and no one would care.
(untitled comment)
Why is it that the journalist is somehow specially qualified to be able to just pull the absolute truth out of a set of perhaps unclear facts? Are they gifted with some kind of mind reading that lets them say with certainty that what someone says is not what they are thinking?
What if two reporters both use these powers of truth determination to figure out what the truth is and their stories conflict? Which one am I to believe? They have both moved beyond the facts and told me what the truth is while leaving out any sense of of the other side's "truth".
The view from nowhere was specifically adopted to avoid these issues and let people figure out who is more likely to be full of shit.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: The further hole
You only needed to read the things he was writing in the months before he died to figure it out. He was talking about how he was really excited to start working with the Democratic party and thought he was going to be a force for positive change. Then how he began to become deeply disappointed after finding some shit out about the things the party was doing.
Then he goes dark for a while, the leaks happen and he turns up dead. Then Julian Assange offers a $25,000 reward for info on his killers.
Re:
Re:
Better example
This is actually like an auto making suing another auto maker and winning because both vehicles adhered to federal automotive standards.
Bit one sided
It's not like this is some kind of baseless attack on him because of his beliefs, and it's not a new thing.
Re: Re: Re: Hate is hate
That seems to be what this is about. People are criticizing the actions of the Israeli government, and being told that makes them anti-semitic nazis.
I don't have anything against Jews, but you don't get a free pass on your actions because you have declared yourself a religious state.
(untitled comment)
On January 14, 2014, the DC Circuit Court determined in the case of Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, that The court vacated two parts of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, determining that the FCC did not have the authority to impose these orders without classifying network providers as common carriers. Since the FCC had previously classified broadband providers as "information services" and not "telecommunications services," they could not be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Therefore, the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 regulations, which could only be applied to common carriers, could not be applied to broadband providers.
According to the courts, there is no such thing as Title I jurisdiction over internet traffic. At least not that can be forced on the ISPs.
Re: Re: Re: Karma
Re:
The whole reason that the courts made them use Title II on the ISPs was because they said that the government have no authority to regulate their internal business practices unless they are a common carrier.
Re: Exercise your rights? Oh that's going to cost you
(untitled comment)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by DiscontentedMajority.
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