Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
...that as part of the plea deal under discussion, Cohen is not expected to cooperate with the government. Instead, by pleading guilty, both Cohen and prosecutors would avoid the spectacle and uncertainty of a trial
Kilkrazy wrote: Bell was a monopoly which controlled the hardware which ran all the electronic communications.
Twitter runs a piece of software to provide one specific service.
However Twitter is much less like a "common carrier" then Bell. Twitter can see all the communications it carries and in my view probably should count as a publisher. I see it as a kind of electronic newspaper which publishes adverts and readers' letters. The same for Facebook.
Of course, their business models wouldn't work if they were treated as publishers, because that would make them responsible for the libel, hate speech and copyright violations that are posted on their systems.
Taibbi: Beware the Slippery Slope of Facebook Censorship
The social network is too big and broken to properly function, and these “fixes” will only create more problems
By Matt Taibbi
You may have seen a story this week detailing how Facebook shut down a series of accounts. As noted by Politico, Facebook claimed these accounts “sought to inflame social and political tensions in the United States, and said their activity was similar — and in some cases connected — to that of Russian accounts during the 2016 election.”
Similar? What does “similar” mean?
The death-pit for civil liberties is usually found in a combination of fringe/unpopular people or ideas and a national security emergency.
This is where we are with this unsettling new confab of Facebook, Congress and the Trump administration.
Read this jarring quote from Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) about the shutting down of the “inauthentic” accounts:
“Today’s disclosure is further evidence that the Kremlin continues to exploit platforms like Facebook to sow division and spread disinformation… I also expect Facebook, along with other platform companies, will continue to identify Russian troll activity and to work with Congress…”
This was in a story in which Facebook stated that it did not know the source of all the pages. They might be Russian, or they might just be Warner’s idea of “sowing division.” Are we comfortable with that range of possibilities?
Many of the banned pages look like parodies of some paranoid bureaucrat’s idea of dangerous speech.
A page called “Black Elevation” shows a picture of Huey Newton and offers readers a job. “Aztlan Warriors” contains a meme celebrating the likes of Geronimo and Zapata, giving thanks for their service in the “the 500 year war against colonialism.”
And a banned “Mindful Being” page shared this, which seems culled from Jack Handey’s Deep Thoughts bit:
“We must unlearn what we have learned because a conditioned mind cannot comprehend the infinite.”
Facebook also wiped out a “No Unite The Right 2” page, appearing to advertise a counter-rally on the upcoming anniversary of the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Facebook was “helped” in its efforts to wipe out these dangerous memes by the Atlantic Council, on whose board you’ll find confidence-inspiring names like Henry Kissinger, former CIA chief Michael Hayden, former acting CIA head Michael Morell and former Bush-era Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff. (The latter is the guy who used to bring you the insane color-coded terror threat level system.)
These people now have their hands on what is essentially a direct lever over nationwide news distribution. It’s hard to understate the potential mischief that lurks behind this union of Internet platforms and would-be government censors.
As noted in Rolling Stone earlier this year, 70 percent of Americans get their news from just two sources, Facebook and Google. As that number rises, the power of just a few people to decide what information does and does not reach the public will amplify significantly.
In a way, this is the other shoe dropping after last week’s much-publicized brouhaha over Infowars lunatic Alex Jones. Jones had four videos removed from YouTube and had his Facebook page banned for 30 days, though he seemed to find a way around that more or less instantly.
These moves were celebrated across social media, because who doesn’t hate Alex Jones?
The complainants in the Jones case included parents of Sandy Hook victims, who have legitimate beef with Jones and his conspiratorial coverage. The Infowars reports asserting the grieving parents were green-screen fakes were not just demonstrably false and rightfully the subject of a defamation suit, but also seemingly crossed a separate line when they published maps and addresses of family members, who experienced threats.
When Jones and his like-minded pals cried censorship and bias, they came across as more than a little disingenuous. After all, right-wingers have consistently argued on behalf of the speech rights of big corporations.
Conservative justices have handed down rulings using the First Amendment to hold back regulation of big tobacco and the gun industry, and to justify unlimited campaign spending. Citizens United was a crucial moment in the degradation of the First Amendment, essentially defining corporate influence as speech.
As many pointed out last week, the Jones ban was not a legal speech issue – not exactly, anyway. No matter how often Jones yelped about “Hitler levels of censorship,” and no matter how many rambling pages he and his minions typed up in their “emergency report” on the “deep state plan to kill the First Amendment,” it didn’t change the objectively true fact their ban was not (yet) a First Amendment issue.
The First Amendment, after all, only addresses the government’s power to restrict speech. It doesn’t address what Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter can do as private companies, enforcing their terms of service.
So it’s true, there was no First Amendment issue with the Jones ban. But that’s the problem.
The pre-Internet system for dealing with defamatory and libelous speech was litigation, which was pretty effective. The standard for punishment was also very high. In the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan — the bedrock case for libel law involving a public figure — the court went out of its way to make sure that complainants needed to prove reckless or knowing disregard for fact.
Among other things, the court worried that absent such a tough legal standard, outlets would play it too safe with speech, and “make only statements which ‘steer far wider of the unlawful zone.’”
This mostly worked. Historically there were few analogs to Infowars that got anything like wide distribution because of the financial threat, which scared publishers most of all. In order to have power to distribute widely you needed resources, but you put those resources at risk if you defamed people.
That all changed with digital media. Way back in 1996, when mastodons roamed the earth and people used dial-up to connect to the Internet, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act. It contained the following landmark language:
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Essentially this meant that Internet providers wouldn’t be treated like news organizations. In the eyes of the law, they were less like CBS or Random House than they were bookstores or newsstands.
The rule allowed platforms to grow exponentially without the same fear of litigation. Companies like Facebook and Google became all-powerful media distributors, and were able to profit from InfoWars-style programs without having to be liable for them.
This led to the flowering of so much obnoxious speech that the First Amendment acquired a reputation as a racist con, and online media distributors, instead of being sued themselves as publishers, began to be viewed as potential restorers of order, beneficent censors.
Now, at a moment of crisis and high political tension, the public seems unable to grasp the gravity of allowing the government or anyone else to use that power.
It is already a scandal that these de facto private media regulators have secret algorithmic processes that push down some news organizations in favor of others. Witness the complaints by outlets like Alternet, Truthdig and others that big platforms have been de-emphasizing alternative sites in the name of combating “fake news.”
But this week’s revelation is worse. When Facebook works with the government and wannabe star-chamber organizations like the Atlantic Council to delete sites on national security grounds, using secret methodology, it opens the door to nightmare possibilities that you’d find in dystopian novels.
The sheer market power of these companies over information flow has always been the real threat. This is why breaking them up should have long ago become an urgent national priority.
Instead, as was obvious during the Senate hearing with Mark Zuckerberg earlier this year, politicians are more interested in using than curtailing the power of these companies. The platforms, for their part, will cave rather than be regulated. The endgame here couldn’t be clearer. This is how authoritarian marriages begin, and people should be very worried.
...that as part of the plea deal under discussion, Cohen is not expected to cooperate with the government. Instead, by pleading guilty, both Cohen and prosecutors would avoid the spectacle and uncertainty of a trial
wut????
that is...an odd turn of events. We'll see how it turns out, I expect it will only get stranger.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
...that as part of the plea deal under discussion, Cohen is not expected to cooperate with the government. Instead, by pleading guilty, both Cohen and prosecutors would avoid the spectacle and uncertainty of a trial
wut????
A lot (most?) plea deals are just done to avoid a trial, not in exchange for information. It's not surprising that Cohen wants to avoid a trial.
RiTides wrote: Alright, I'm re-opening the thread. I would ask that no one reply to a post from before this warning and start discussing current political issues fresh from here on.
If you really wanted to "start fresh", maybe you should have started a NEW thread and deleted the old one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/21 19:08:38
RiTides wrote: Alright, I'm re-opening the thread. I would ask that no one reply to a post from before this warning and start discussing current political issues fresh from here on.
If you really wanted to "start fresh", maybe you should have started a NEW thread and deleted the old one.
Why? That seems like a waste when we could just do as asked.
whembly wrote:Brennan deserves having his clearance revoked.
Especially since his punditry seems to be framed as... hey, if you knew what I knew <wink, wink> ya'll would be gathering the tar and pitch forks! Plus the abject demagoguery politicalization of his intelligence credentials is appalling.
The issue I have with Trump is that he's gleefully doing this out of spite, when it was waaaaaaaaaay overdue,if nothing else, for the gak he's done while he held government positions.
What is most hilarious is the reason given.
"Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on the internet and television. Mr. Brennan´s lying and recent conduct characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nations most closely held secrets."
That is a statement from President Trump, read by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders in connection with the withdrawal of the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.
That is actually what was presented as the reason.
In case it isn't obvious, try replacing "Mr. Brennan" with "President Trump".
Here's the thing... just because Trump does things that are categorically beneath his office... doesn't justify such demagoguery from a former CIA director. Especially when intimating that he has knowledge of Trump corruption based on his privileged access to intelligence information.
Oh, I am in no way holding up former CIA Director John Brennan as a paragon of virtue - not even as anybody to in any way emulate.
This isn't the dishonest and pathetic practice of attempting to make your guy look good by smearing your opponent with unfounded allegations and "just asking questions" - despite it being the ENTIRE foundation of President Trump's successful election campaign.
This is about the reasons presented being BLATANTLY applicable to President Trump to a huge degree - and the administration being completely blind to this - or confident that it will fly straight straight over the heads of their ignorant low-information supporters.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
whembly wrote: Twittah, Facebook, et. el. needs to decide if they're publishers, which enjoys wide latitudes in censoring certain contents... or if they're a platform, which can get dicey.
There is no decision to be made. They are private services that can do whatever they want and have whatever content policies they want. They can even contradict themselves with those policies if they want. And no, the government has no authority to step in, regardless of what the companies decide, with the exception of illegal acts (death threats, etc).
Private business or not, if they sell themselves as a platform, then there is some legitimate issues concerning free speech and a free exchange of ideas. Because public platforms, privately owned or not, are a big gray area when it comes to First Amendment protections. And it can be legitimately argued that First Amendment protections apply in that case.
I do find it highly amusing that leftists are all of a sudden pro-capitialism, pro-private/free enterprise, and pro-private property when it comes to censoring ideas that they find distateful, or supressing rights that they think don't exist for the individual. But repeal equal opportunities/employment laws for private business and other private institutions, or let a private university start suppressing ALL political speech, and the left would throw a bitchfit that would reach to high heaven.
RiTides wrote: Alright, I'm re-opening the thread. I would ask that no one reply to a post from before this warning and start discussing current political issues fresh from here on.
If you really wanted to "start fresh", maybe you should have started a NEW thread and deleted the old one.
Why? That seems like a waste when we could just do as asked.
You mean like the first post in thread says?
Manchu wrote: As a reminder, this is a site for discussing miniatures gaming. Discussion of contentious issues like politics is not the point of posting on Dakka Dakka. There is an ongoing debate about whether it should even be allowed. I have specifically volunteered to moderate only and not participate in this discussion. In addition to using the normal alert system, please feel free to PM me directly regarding this thread.
Please keep in mind the site rules apply:
(1) Be Polite
It is okay to disagree. Disagreement does not justify personal attacks. All argument should be about points rather than about posters. Flamebaiting is not allowed, either. This means, phrasing posts in such a way that would be likely to personally insult other posters (generalized/passive aggressive phrasing [.e.g., "people who think X are dumb"] is a common example). Furthermore, if you think someone is breaking Rule One the ONLY appropriate action is to report that post to the staff via the Yellow Triangle in the top right of the offending post. Do NOT retaliate. And keep in mind, Legoburner has created the useful Ignore button.
(2) Stay On-Topic
This is a catch-all thread for US Political topics. If you have any questions about what should or should not be posted in this thread you can always PM a moderator before posting.
(3) No Spam
Spam includes image-only replies but broadly refers to any post devoid of "discussionable" content. What qualifies is ultimately up to the staff. As with Rule One, the only appropriate response to spam is to ignore it and report it via the Yellow Triangle.
If they wouldn't listen to Manchu, why would they listen to RiTides?
Or a person could choose not to participate in the thread.
Arguing that it shouldn't exist seems strange.
Just stay out.
I am very anti-gun, so I remain far away from the "Firearms you own, and their uses" thread - but I am not arguing here or in the Nuts and Bolt forum that it shouldn't exist.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
Steelmage99 wrote: I am very anti-gun, so I remain far away from the "Firearms you own, and their uses" thread - but I am not arguing here or in the Nuts and Bolt forum that it shouldn't exist.
I dunno. How much Mod action does the Firearms thread require compared to US Politics? I argue for it's removal because it seems to be a waste of the Mod's time and energy, and because it detracts from the site at large.
Anyhow, I'm out of this thread, but I may bang the drum when the Mods need to lock (again), as a reminder that maybe they should just leave it locked for the good of the site.
2 in 7 chance for GOP to retain house, an average expected gain of 34 seats for Democrats. We are still several months out however, and one should never underestimate thr ability of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Manafort found guilty on 8 charges. -5 are for failure to file appropriate yearly Tax form -3 are for bank fraud stemming from not filing foreign and fraudulent loans -10 other charges are mistrialed
... he's going to jail... up to maximum of ~90 yrs in prison.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/21 20:53:50
RiTides wrote: It is interesting to me how Twitter has to figure out what to allow and disallow, without wading into hot button issues themselves. This one seems pretty easy (he posted inciting violence, a clear violation of their terms). But others are a Lot more grey..
They haven't banned Trump, who has threatened war. They still allow scores of nazis. Twitter doesn't consistently enforce their rules.
whembly wrote: Manafort found guilty on 8 charges.
-5 are for failure to fail appropriate yearly Tax form
-3 are for bank fraud stemming from not filing foreign and fraudulent loans
-10 other charges are mistrialed
... he's going to jail... up to maximum of ~90 yrs in prison.
Finally, some good news!
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
whembly wrote: Manafort found guilty on 8 charges.
-5 are for failure to fail appropriate yearly Tax form
-3 are for bank fraud stemming from not filing foreign and fraudulent loans
-10 other charges are mistrialed
... he's going to jail... up to maximum of ~90 yrs in prison.
Brutal, it will be interesting to see what exactly stuck and why did not.
I'm reminded of the Batman sketch, it may have been posted earlier in the thread, where the Joker talks about how he's crazy enough to take on Batman, he's not crazy enough to take on the IRS
On another note, Trump's former personal attorney and his former campaign manager have been convicted of fraud crimes on literally the same day, that's...an accomplishment.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
whembly wrote: Manafort found guilty on 8 charges.
-5 are for failure to fail appropriate yearly Tax form
-3 are for bank fraud stemming from not filing foreign and fraudulent loans
-10 other charges are mistrialed
... he's going to jail... up to maximum of ~90 yrs in prison.
Brutal, it will be interesting to see what exactly stuck and why did not.
I'm reminded of the Batman sketch, it may have been posted earlier in the thread, where the Joker talks about how he's crazy enough to take on Batman, he's not crazy enough to take on the IRS
On another note, Trump's former personal attorney and his former campaign manager have been convicted of fraud crimes on literally the same day, that's...an accomplishment.
True but Manafort's fraud and tax evasion crimes aren't related to Trump or the Trump campaign, it all stems from his time taking money as a consultant/lawyer whatever from the Ukraine.
whembly wrote: Twittah, Facebook, et. el. needs to decide if they're publishers, which enjoys wide latitudes in censoring certain contents... or if they're a platform, which can get dicey.
There is no decision to be made. They are private services that can do whatever they want and have whatever content policies they want. They can even contradict themselves with those policies if they want. And no, the government has no authority to step in, regardless of what the companies decide, with the exception of illegal acts (death threats, etc).
Private business or not, if they sell themselves as a platform, then there is some legitimate issues concerning free speech and a free exchange of ideas. Because public platforms, privately owned or not, are a big gray area when it comes to First Amendment protections. And it can be legitimately argued that First Amendment protections apply in that case.
I do find it highly amusing that leftists are all of a sudden pro-capitialism, pro-private/free enterprise, and pro-private property when it comes to censoring ideas that they find distateful, or supressing rights that they think don't exist for the individual. But repeal equal opportunities/employment laws for private business and other private institutions, or let a private university start suppressing ALL political speech, and the left would throw a bitchfit that would reach to high heaven.
Fun fact, it's literally illegal for the government to consider social media platforms like Facebook to be publishers.
The First Amendment, after all, only addresses the government’s power to restrict speech. It doesn’t address what Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter can do as private companies, enforcing their terms of service.
So it’s true, there was no First Amendment issue with the Jones ban. But that’s the problem.
The pre-Internet system for dealing with defamatory and libelous speech was litigation, which was pretty effective. The standard for punishment was also very high. In the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan — the bedrock case for libel law involving a public figure — the court went out of its way to make sure that complainants needed to prove reckless or knowing disregard for fact.
Among other things, the court worried that absent such a tough legal standard, outlets would play it too safe with speech, and “make only statements which ‘steer far wider of the unlawful zone.’”
This mostly worked. Historically there were few analogs to Infowars that got anything like wide distribution because of the financial threat, which scared publishers most of all. In order to have power to distribute widely you needed resources, but you put those resources at risk if you defamed people.
That all changed with digital media. Way back in 1996, when mastodons roamed the earth and people used dial-up to connect to the Internet, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act. It contained the following landmark language:
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Essentially this meant that Internet providers wouldn’t be treated like news organizations. In the eyes of the law, they were less like CBS or Random House than they were bookstores or newsstands.
The rule allowed platforms to grow exponentially without the same fear of litigation. Companies like Facebook and Google became all-powerful media distributors, and were able to profit from InfoWars-style programs without having to be liable for them.
This led to the flowering of so much obnoxious speech that the First Amendment acquired a reputation as a racist con, and online media distributors, instead of being sued themselves as publishers, began to be viewed as potential restorers of order, beneficent censors.
Now, at a moment of crisis and high political tension, the public seems unable to grasp the gravity of allowing the government or anyone else to use that power.
It is already a scandal that these de facto private media regulators have secret algorithmic processes that push down some news organizations in favor of others. Witness the complaints by outlets like Alternet, Truthdig and others that big platforms have been de-emphasizing alternative sites in the name of combating “fake news.”
But this week’s revelation is worse. When Facebook works with the government and wannabe star-chamber organizations like the Atlantic Council to delete sites on national security grounds, using secret methodology, it opens the door to nightmare possibilities that you’d find in dystopian novels.
The sheer market power of these companies over information flow has always been the real threat. This is why breaking them up should have long ago become an urgent national priority.
Instead, as was obvious during the Senate hearing with Mark Zuckerberg earlier this year, politicians are more interested in using than curtailing the power of these companies. The platforms, for their part, will cave rather than be regulated. The endgame here couldn’t be clearer. This is how authoritarian marriages begin, and people should be very worried.
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Doesn't that just basically mean that if I type out my own words on Twitter, they are a publisher, but if I share a CNN story on Twitter, CNN remains the Publisher?
Or is the argument that I am my own publisher if I'm Tweeting, rather than Twitter?
d-usa wrote: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Doesn't that just basically mean that if I type out my own words on Twitter, they are a publisher, but if I share a CNN story on Twitter, CNN remains the Publisher?
Or is the argument that I am my own publisher if I'm Tweeting, rather than Twitter?
Per my experience you're responsible for what stupid things you say on my site.
If CNN puts out a bad story, CNN gets sued, not cnn.com. If someone posts death threats to Matt Ward over in general they get sued not Dakka.
It's why stormfront still exists last I remembered, otherwise they'd have been sued into oblivion the same way the nationally organized KKK was over a few particular cases.
d-usa wrote: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Doesn't that just basically mean that if I type out my own words on Twitter, they are a publisher, but if I share a CNN story on Twitter, CNN remains the Publisher?
Or is the argument that I am my own publisher if I'm Tweeting, rather than Twitter?
Per my experience you're responsible for what stupid things you say on my site.
If CNN puts out a bad story, CNN gets sued, not cnn.com. If someone posts death threats to Matt Ward over in general they get sued not Dakka.
It's why stormfront still exists last I remembered, otherwise they'd have been sued into oblivion the same way the nationally organized KKK was over a few particular cases.
There is still the difference between author and publisher, and your post seems to mix those two roles up a bit.
...that as part of the plea deal under discussion, Cohen is not expected to cooperate with the government. Instead, by pleading guilty, both Cohen and prosecutors would avoid the spectacle and uncertainty of a trial
wut????
A lot (most?) plea deals are just done to avoid a trial, not in exchange for information. It's not surprising that Cohen wants to avoid a trial.
Well, sometimes you become a cooperating witness and spend the next few years working for the government to help them make a case against someone else.
Other times, you just plead quilty to committing federal campaign finance violations "at the direction of a candidate for federal office" and call it a day.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/21 21:30:55
There is still the difference between author and publisher, and your post seems to mix those two roles up a bit.
Because I'm not talking about publishers, websites aren't publishers due to that law, we're talking about "information content provider"s and those can be publishers or people. Hence why CNN and some idiot can both be considered content providers to their respective web sites.
That's the argument made by companies that don't want the liability of being publishers though.
The law says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"
So that's what I am thinking about. Sharing CNN stuff on Facebook doesn't make Facebook the publisher or speaker of that story, the publisher or speaker is still CNN. If something originates on Facebook, do they become the publisher then, because I am not sure that there is another publisher or speaker who is providing that content if Facebook is the first place it's published. Unless the author of the original post would be the "other information content provider".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/21 21:41:44
d-usa wrote: That's the argument made by companies that don't want the liability of being publishers though.
I think the general idea is that, if I put a soapbox on the ground for general use, what you say when you stand on it isn't my fault. I suspect the intent of the law was to protect the internet providers at the time (AOL, etc. ), as who could have foreseen where we'd be now with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube? Remember, back in those days, not everybody knew the difference between their internet provider and the websites they visited. They just knew they got their internet from, say, AOL so it must all be AOL, for example.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Vaktathi wrote: Brutal, it will be interesting to see what exactly stuck and why did not.
I'm reminded of the Batman sketch, it may have been posted earlier in the thread, where the Joker talks about how he's crazy enough to take on Batman, he's not crazy enough to take on the IRS
On another note, Trump's former personal attorney and his former campaign manager have been convicted of fraud crimes on literally the same day, that's...an accomplishment.
The Jury couldn't decide on at least one of the ten charges due to their uncertainty about what qualified as a 'shelf company'
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
d-usa wrote: That's the argument made by companies that don't want the liability of being publishers though.
I think the general idea is that, if I put a soapbox on the ground for general use, what you say when you stand on it isn't my fault. I suspect the intent of the law was to protect the internet providers at the time (AOL, etc. ), as who could have foreseen where we'd be now with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube? Remember, back in those days, not everybody knew the difference between their internet provider and the websites they visited. They just knew they got their internet from, say, AOL so it must all be AOL, for example.
That's what I am guessing. The owner of the piece of fiber running into my house shouldn't be responsible for the crap I read on the internet, so even though they bring the information to my computer and deliver the words I am seeing on my screen they are not the publishers of that information. Neither is the big fiber cable, or the owner of the underwater cable, or the cellphone tower if I'm reading Dakka on the crapper at work.
The question then becomes just how far back do we want to go along that chain until we reach the publisher, rather than a re-publisher (aka: content provider)?
Vaktathi wrote: Brutal, it will be interesting to see what exactly stuck and why did not.
I'm reminded of the Batman sketch, it may have been posted earlier in the thread, where the Joker talks about how he's crazy enough to take on Batman, he's not crazy enough to take on the IRS
On another note, Trump's former personal attorney and his former campaign manager have been convicted of fraud crimes on literally the same day, that's...an accomplishment.
The Jury couldn't decide on at least one of the ten charges due to their uncertainty about what qualified as a 'shelf company'
So not a single "not guilty" verdict out of the bunch?
Have they said if they will go for a retrial on those charges?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/21 21:52:57
d-usa wrote: That's the argument made by companies that don't want the liability of being publishers though.
The law says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"
So that's what I am thinking about. Sharing CNN stuff on Facebook doesn't make Facebook the publisher or speaker of that story, the publisher or speaker is still CNN. If something originates on Facebook, do they become the publisher then, because I am not sure that there is another publisher or speaker who is providing that content if Facebook is the first place it's published. Unless the author of the original post would be the "other information content provider".
I've run websites containing comment sections, I've had legal threats and talked to lawyers. The website is not to blame, it is a platform, if something involves liability it sits on whoever is responsible for generating the content, not the host.
And like I said, if you could hold sites responsible for what's said on them or actions of their members there's a whole bunch of sites that would no longer exist.
Facebook and Twitter are massive platforms for communication, but they are no more responsible for the content on them that does not originate directly from them than the phone company is for content passed along their lines.
I do find it highly amusing that leftists are all of a sudden pro-capitialism, pro-private/free enterprise, and pro-private property when it comes to censoring ideas that they find distateful, or supressing rights that they think don't exist for the individual. But repeal equal opportunities/employment laws for private business and other private institutions, or let a private university start suppressing ALL political speech, and the left would throw a bitchfit that would reach to high heaven.
Being a gakstain is not a protected class nor a political belief. Therein lies the difference.
While it was a rather simplistic (read: unecessary and somewhat juvenile) thing do do, and totally out of left field, it was anything but racist.
Being surprised that a Hispanic officer speaks fluent English is very much a racist thing.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
but if you want to discuss further let's take it to 
