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.
(untitled comment)
Be willing to bet that those filthy pirates had zero problems playing any of those games.
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.
(untitled comment)
Meanwhile, the ghouls over at fox news continue spreading lies and no one in Congress says nothing.
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.
(untitled comment)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here's their mistake
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.
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.
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.
(untitled comment)
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.
Re: Re: Getting called a Nazi...
Which is what happens when you align yourself with white supremacists and Nazis.
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.
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:
They could be held liable by anyone harmed by the violence that was called for and planned in those posts.l
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.
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.
More comments from Keroberos >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Keroberos.
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