lawyers that go fully off the reservation do get disbarred. the real problem here is that lawyers in a general sense don't consider the above behavior to be a real problem
It's not fake news. The news report was that a dossier was included in intelligence briefings. That is 100% true. CNN didn't make it newsworthy, the intelligence officials did when they briefed the president elect.
You know what's ACTUALLY fake news? That Obama was born in Kenya. Or that Cruz's father helped assassinate JFK. Or any one of a hundred blatantly false things Trump said during the campaign, and continues to say now.
With his buddy Pete Thiel at his side, a contempt for the first amendment isn't very surprising. Traitors, all of them.
Remember that rumor that Trump would nominate Thiel to the supreme court? Yeah, if that comes to pass we may as well just start preparing the rockets so we can blast ourselves off this planet.
uhmm, no it's not. "you lied" or "liar" and similar descriptions are classic examples of protected statements of opinion. go back and read about defamation, fool
No doubt the filing in Massachusetts was intentional because they have a very weak anti-SLAPP law. It only protects cases that involve speech directed at the government. However, it is possible that Techdirt could fit into a broad interpretation of the guidelines since they usually are talking about government-related topics like lawsuits and policy making.
Mike has contributed more to the world through Techdirt than you ever will. If you cared about facts or truth, you wouldn't be so butthurt. Now take your foolish ass outside while the adults are talking.
They aren't trying to measure user satisfaction with Comcast. They are trying to measure how much they can get away without boiling over into the news media. As long as they keep user rage under those levels they don't have to worry about regulatory action.
Let me start by saying that I'm no fan of Verizon. I think the best thing about them is that, hey, at least they aren't Comcast. I currently hold a grandfathered unlimited plan with Verizon. So, I love a good point-and-laugh article about one of their press releases, but this part got to me.
As its opening salvo, Verizon repeats its claim that a 17% rate hike isn't a rate hike if you squint and look at the numbers in just the right way:
Myth: Verizon is raising prices with its new plans.
Reality: The price per GB is lower, across the board. The price went from $30 to $17.50 per GB on the S size plan and from $5.56 to $4.58 on XXL.
This is, of course, not unlike the cable industry trying to claim you're not really paying too much for cable because you're now getting more amazing value per channel. In reality, usage caps are already arbitrary constructs with no ties to real-world costs, and Verizon's entire plan structure is carefully built to drive as many customers to the most expensive data plans. Plans they may not need, but sign up for simply because they have no idea what a megabyte even is, and want to avoid any risk of absurd $15 per gigabyte overage fees.
Can we at least acknowledge that the price per GB is being lowered? One of our main complaints is that they overcharge per GB, so they should at least get some credit for reducing that number. Otherwise we just seem biased.
Instead, I would focus on two things. First that the price of entry has increased. Second that Verizon doesn't value every GB equally.
They need to called out on the fact they they are trying to make Internet access a premium product. Between higher costs for entry level plans and zero-rating of their own content they are expressing that access to independent, unfiltered information is not for the poor. I don't like that message one bit.
The second point is what strikes me the most. Verizon apparently values it's precious bandwith less if you're willing to write a bigger check. Why are we not calling them out for this? It undermines essentially every argument they make defending their pricing. Lower-tier plans which are more likely to get overage charges are more expensive per GB. Higher-tier plans which you might expect to be used more are less expensive per GB. It's completely backwards and suggests a cynical focus on forcing the customer to trade off overage charge fees vs unused pre-paid data.
A deeper dive into why we are so critical would be better than just harping on the fact that the new number is bigger than the old number.
Again, the individual in question has made a very credible case that the existence of these records is making it difficult for the person to move forward in life, and they truly regret the filings.
Translation:
The individual regrets it now that they lost the case and their malice is having an impact on their own life. Would they regret it if they had won? I think not.
Re:
jesus man, don't give them ideas
Re: Re:
(untitled comment)
Re: Time for a new verb...
Re: Re:
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Re: Re:
You know what's ACTUALLY fake news? That Obama was born in Kenya. Or that Cruz's father helped assassinate JFK. Or any one of a hundred blatantly false things Trump said during the campaign, and continues to say now.
(untitled comment)
Remember that rumor that Trump would nominate Thiel to the supreme court? Yeah, if that comes to pass we may as well just start preparing the rockets so we can blast ourselves off this planet.
Re: Talk about fake news
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Re:
Re:
Re: What goes around, comes around
"fascinating" is one way to put it
Crazy is as crazy does
(untitled comment)
Can we get a more measured analysis please?
Can we at least acknowledge that the price per GB is being lowered? One of our main complaints is that they overcharge per GB, so they should at least get some credit for reducing that number. Otherwise we just seem biased.
Instead, I would focus on two things. First that the price of entry has increased. Second that Verizon doesn't value every GB equally.
They need to called out on the fact they they are trying to make Internet access a premium product. Between higher costs for entry level plans and zero-rating of their own content they are expressing that access to independent, unfiltered information is not for the poor. I don't like that message one bit.
The second point is what strikes me the most. Verizon apparently values it's precious bandwith less if you're willing to write a bigger check. Why are we not calling them out for this? It undermines essentially every argument they make defending their pricing. Lower-tier plans which are more likely to get overage charges are more expensive per GB. Higher-tier plans which you might expect to be used more are less expensive per GB. It's completely backwards and suggests a cynical focus on forcing the customer to trade off overage charge fees vs unused pre-paid data.
A deeper dive into why we are so critical would be better than just harping on the fact that the new number is bigger than the old number.
Betteridge's law of headlines
Re: Unreasonable request
Translation:
The individual regrets it now that they lost the case and their malice is having an impact on their own life. Would they regret it if they had won? I think not.
More comments from metalliqaz >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by metalliqaz.
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