"“There has been a growing trend for individuals to abuse process and maliciously prosecute someone they disagree with ideologically by filing spurious cases and controversies in various government venues for ulterior motives, knowing that certain segments of the media that align with their ideology would serve as an accomplice by engaging in a form of defamation ... by selectively reporting on the facts of the original case but not on the actual outcome.”
When all the dust has settled, when all the statutes of limitation have been exhausted, when the person behind @DevinCow finally reveals herself, I resolve to offer to take her anywhere in the world she wants to go for two weeks at my expense. It's a small price for all the wonderful schadenfreude bestowed on me as I think of Devin Nunes' paper thin skin igniting in rage every time he reads his cow's Twitter feed.
If people weren't so credulous and gullible there wouldn't be a problem. Politicians are attacking tech because they don't want to acknowledge this reality. The reason is obvious: politicians, their enablers in the media, and the government in general need such an unquestioning public to swallow the endless deluge of bullshit they produce with as little resistance as possible.
When will people understand that ALL art is derivative. Everything everyone creates is influenced by their exposure to previous art, and not even art in the same medium.
You wrote my post for me. Just imagine if FB cut off all traffic to every IP in the EU just for a day. If that didn't foment an insurrection to get rid of the morons in their government(s), I'll bet a week would. Same for YouTube.
I think in making "forgetting" decisions, some basic journalistic rules should be applied. WHO is posting the original story/allegation and whom are they targeting? WHY are they creating the story? HOW are they selling it or framing it, including how both sides are presented? WHAT are their motivations and what are the repercussions to the creators, or reporters, or target(s) of the story if they're wrong?
The monolith of "law enforcement" smears people all the time and various media organizations amplify those relentlessly, yet I very rarely see retractions or exonerations published with the same prominence or urgency, if they're published at all. Bullshit accusations can ruin lives just as much as not warning of or detaining a criminal can. It's complicated.
This is just another variation of the "parent's veto". It goes like this: "If people aren't severely punished for whatever consensual act I disapprove of, it sends the wrong message to MY child(ren)!"
Not a chance. Dukes will be in protective custody from the second he enters the jail, although they might let him get it up by beating some of the other prisoners. Blue Privilege doesn't stop at the jailhouse door.
The arrogance of the law infliction is always breathtaking, but they're not the only offenders in the piece, at least if one is considering spelling, grammar, or usage. I particularly love the line, "the K9 hit on the truck". Really? Was the pickup truck particularly good-looking? Did the dog think the truck had money and could be its sugar daddy? Or did it simply think it could simply confiscate the truck though asset forfeiture? Was there a sexual harassment complaint filed? I think they meant "alerted".
However, don't criticize someone for misspelling "brake" if you're using words like "effecting". Effect is a noun. "Affecting" is likely what you wanted. Also phrases such as "there's a couple of bars" are grating. "Bars" is a plural noun. Don't tell me that these mistakes don't make a difference, especially when discussing imposition of the law. Sorry, I was raised by a strict grammarian.
The only protection we'll soon have from the police/surveillance state will be hackers able to disrupt their systems. Neither the political nor the (supposedly apolitical) judicial system are up to the task.
Metaphors and expressions
I think the situation is less Gordian and more Sisyphean.
(untitled comment)
"“There has been a growing trend for individuals to abuse process and maliciously prosecute someone they disagree with ideologically by filing spurious cases and controversies in various government venues for ulterior motives, knowing that certain segments of the media that align with their ideology would serve as an accomplice by engaging in a form of defamation ... by selectively reporting on the facts of the original case but not on the actual outcome.”
I wonder if he knows Devin Nunes.
The beautiful @DevinCow
When all the dust has settled, when all the statutes of limitation have been exhausted, when the person behind @DevinCow finally reveals herself, I resolve to offer to take her anywhere in the world she wants to go for two weeks at my expense. It's a small price for all the wonderful schadenfreude bestowed on me as I think of Devin Nunes' paper thin skin igniting in rage every time he reads his cow's Twitter feed.
(untitled comment)
If people weren't so credulous and gullible there wouldn't be a problem. Politicians are attacking tech because they don't want to acknowledge this reality. The reason is obvious: politicians, their enablers in the media, and the government in general need such an unquestioning public to swallow the endless deluge of bullshit they produce with as little resistance as possible.
I IV V
When will people understand that ALL art is derivative. Everything everyone creates is influenced by their exposure to previous art, and not even art in the same medium.
Re:
You wrote my post for me. Just imagine if FB cut off all traffic to every IP in the EU just for a day. If that didn't foment an insurrection to get rid of the morons in their government(s), I'll bet a week would. Same for YouTube.
It's complicated
I think in making "forgetting" decisions, some basic journalistic rules should be applied. WHO is posting the original story/allegation and whom are they targeting? WHY are they creating the story? HOW are they selling it or framing it, including how both sides are presented? WHAT are their motivations and what are the repercussions to the creators, or reporters, or target(s) of the story if they're wrong?
The monolith of "law enforcement" smears people all the time and various media organizations amplify those relentlessly, yet I very rarely see retractions or exonerations published with the same prominence or urgency, if they're published at all. Bullshit accusations can ruin lives just as much as not warning of or detaining a criminal can. It's complicated.
Irony
Since we have the demi-god cops (at least in their minds) protecting us, why would anyone need such a surveillance camera?
Shambolic Hypocrites
This is just another variation of the "parent's veto". It goes like this: "If people aren't severely punished for whatever consensual act I disapprove of, it sends the wrong message to MY child(ren)!"
Re:
Not a chance. Dukes will be in protective custody from the second he enters the jail, although they might let him get it up by beating some of the other prisoners. Blue Privilege doesn't stop at the jailhouse door.
Spelling
The arrogance of the law infliction is always breathtaking, but they're not the only offenders in the piece, at least if one is considering spelling, grammar, or usage. I particularly love the line, "the K9 hit on the truck". Really? Was the pickup truck particularly good-looking? Did the dog think the truck had money and could be its sugar daddy? Or did it simply think it could simply confiscate the truck though asset forfeiture? Was there a sexual harassment complaint filed? I think they meant "alerted".
However, don't criticize someone for misspelling "brake" if you're using words like "effecting". Effect is a noun. "Affecting" is likely what you wanted. Also phrases such as "there's a couple of bars" are grating. "Bars" is a plural noun. Don't tell me that these mistakes don't make a difference, especially when discussing imposition of the law. Sorry, I was raised by a strict grammarian.
(untitled comment)
The only protection we'll soon have from the police/surveillance state will be hackers able to disrupt their systems. Neither the political nor the (supposedly apolitical) judicial system are up to the task.
Bridge For Sale!
I believe the NSA as much as I believe Mark Zuckerberg saying that Facebook is going to become a "privacy-focused platform".
(untitled comment)
Remember when Google's motto was, "don't be evil"? Evil is tempting. And evil is lucrative.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by laminar flow.
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