This is your daily reminder that a "page 10" correction to the previous day's "Front page bombshell" is one of the many issues of the "Fake news" paradigm.
When the initial story gets widespread dissemination and the correction is all but ignored because it's no longer "News of the day", then the initial story is what people remember, and often quote later even after a correction has been issued.
Fake news is not just deliberate lies. It's many things. You'll be quite surprised to know that Fake news can also be rooted 100% in truth, if you simply omit key facts or context that are unfavorable to the narrative you're attempting to spin.
Try going to a physical public forum with a tin of red paint, a megaphone and an inflatable sex doll (inflated). See if your 1st Amendment rights stop them booting you out of the mall.
You're missing the point. If Trump is holding a Town Hall meeting at said Mall. But Mall cops are preventing from entering the Mall because I'm banned from it, then they are technically infringing the spirit of this ruling if not the letter. This is what people are trying to explain to you, but you are refusing to accept because it taints your anti-trump narrative.
The 1st doesn't mean you have an unlimited right to troll as much as you want, it just gives you a great deal of leeway before that line is crossed.
Except this ruling just said the opposite. You can troll Trump as much as you want, and there's nothing he can do about it. He has no right to block you. By proxy, this should extend to anyone doing the blocking, including the "hosts" of the public forum, aka Facebook/Twitter themselves.
I know this is complicated and you want to spin it to ORANGE MAN BAD! / EVERYONE ELSE GOOD!, but that's not how life works.
The court just ruled it's a PUBLIC social media platform, insofar as Politician pages are concerned.
It's also been the logicial argument from the start : Twitter/Facebook have pretty much made their own virtual townsquares and can be argued to have "Monopolies" in their particular domains.
Remember when Slashdot was for Anti-trust laws being applied to big tech bullies ? The 90s were for sure better times than today.
Man does have a point. A politician cannot "block" you for being disruptive on his "public forum" page, but Facebook/Twitter can block you for being disruptive elsewhere on the site. Meaning in this case, Facebook/Twitter are by proxy blocking you from access to your politician's public forum.
This can't be either/or. Either Facebook/Twitter are public forums and thus need to be open to everyone based on 1st Amendment rights, or Facebook/Twitter need to simply shut down all Politician pages to remain private entities free to censor any one they dislike as they have been doing.
Any sort of "half measure" is just again the Left trying to have its cake and eat it too.
Also, why are you all over this discussion replying to every thread ? You're not even an American.
Except you're wrong. Laws are not necessarily ethical or moral. Permissible by law doesn't mean it's "the right thing to do" at all.
Bad analogy time : someone in front of you at the grocery store falls down and hurts their foot. It's quite lawful to just walk by, even stretch your arm over them to grab some box of cereal and leave them there. But is it moral ?
No one misunderstands the purpose of the electric car.
People question the value of paying a premium for a supposedly "green" solution.
You're sold a reduction of emissions. Governements subsidize a reduction in emission. If you're not actually reducing emissions, that's a whole lot of money getting spent on things you're not receiving.
If it's anything I'd say it's annoyance at the narrative that gets pushed around here
Yes, we are annoyed at the msmash narrative pushed here, by known Internet trolls and liars like Kotaku and the Marxist game blogs, and then repeated as gospel by you.
Maybe you guys could actually look into things rather than take statements by "poor defenseless, but nonetheless strong and independant women!" at face value all the time.
Gamergate was about Nathan Grayson's unethical journalism until the victims turned it into something about "women being attacked". No dipshits, this is about the guy who wrote the piece without disclosing he was having sex with a person he was giving prominence to. Who that person is doesn't matter. What matters is Grayson's blatant disregard for proper journalistic practices.
Or at least admit what you're doing with Rock Paper Shotgun isn't journalism. Don't pretend you're the "gaming press" if you're just a crappy PR agency that gives coverage to anyone willing to give you favors.
The PC government also cancelled a large wind project,
Because those projects up here in Canada were born of corruption between the industry and the political branch. There was no need for Wind capacity, Ontario and Quebec both already produce much more power than they use. The wind contracts are costly, provide money to lobbyist who pushed for them and have no inherent value for the tax payer.
If anything, Quebec now needs to follow suit and cancel its own "wind turbine" projects which are privatized and a cash sink for tax payers. Move that money to actual productive use, we have plenty of cheaper, cleaner, Hydro power. It might not be as trendy as "wind!", but it's better.
Only uneducated fools who stick to "headlines" think this is a bad move, you environnementalists don't ever pay attention to the details to see if what you're pushing is even a good idea. It's always "HOW DARE YOU SIR!" faux-outrage at any steps, and money needs to be spent at all times even if it provides no actual value or does not even help.
If it's unclear what the facts are... don't state things as fact then, which the initial Verge headline did. That's like one of the big problems with current day journalism, it's not based on facts.
Again : stop making this a right vs left thing. It's a bad thing regardless of your side of the political aisle.
Dead on accurate... after the fact. They changed their headline for one. It used to read :
"The FCC wants to charge you $225 to review your complaint".
Whereas it now reads :
"Democrats argue a new FCC rule would hinder consumers, but Commission says they got it wrong".
This is a typical tactic, where you post an initial story, with initial "wrong facts" and "sensational" headline. Get a massive ton of shares of social media and get the outrage rolling, and then silently update the story to be less biased/sensational when the initial surge of visits/shares has died down.
Make sure to hide the correction way down. The Verge's story has this paragraph now :
"Update and correction July 11th, 12:30PM ET: The article has been updated to include the FCCâ(TM)s response and to clarify that the informal complaints change was expressed by the congressmen; this article previously described the change as requiring consumers to pay a $225 fee, as stated in the letter."
So yes, The Verge's story was initially bad. It was just later amended to be "Oh wait, lol journalism, our bad". Why did you jump at "you right-wing" people right away and call it conspiracy ?
... is how The Verge is simply a Democrat mouthpiece that doesn't actually do any kind of Journalism. At least, that's the news if you weren't already aware about all these left-wing biased online blogs that try to pass themselves off as news these days.
Also INB4 "But muh Fox news". Yes, the state of reporting and journalism in the country is absolutely atrocious and going downhill.
WHAT YOU SAID: "if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen." But that is wholly false, and we are currently talking about natural citizens having their citizenship revoked.
How is it false ?
Birthright citizenship cannot be revoked, only naturalized citizens can be denaturalized. Otherwise, cite the statute. Again : exactly what I said in my initial post.
You have no idea what you are talking about
I was replying to someone who claimed "any legal infraction" was enough to cause revocation of citizenship.
So maybe next time, instead of being mad at me for reasons unknown (why did you even foe me ? again : what the heck have I done to you ?), try reading the context.
And when you say "false" try not repeating word for word what I said.
It is not a tarpit though. It's meant to prevent flooding of a host country with unproductive elements that are simply seeking a handout.
There's limited needs and capacity in host countries, and as such, immigration factors those needs and that capacity instead of simply accepting anyone that applies.
One that is simpler and easier to navigate than most other sovereign nations in the world.
What's your point ?
Get in line, wait like everyone else. Skipping means you're likely to get deported and barred future entry. Coming back is likely to get you a felony prosecution. As it should for a sovereign nation.
However, it's relatively difficult to legally enter the United States compared to other countries. The laws have been increasingly draconian since 9/11
The US has some of the least stringent immigration laws of any country. Canada has more restrictions on who can legally immigrate than the US for cripe's sake.
Technically, any legal infraction is reason enough to allow someone to have their legal status revoked.
This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked. That means if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen. There's 4 specific things that can lead to "Denaturalization" :
- Lying on your citizenship application. - Refusing to conform to a congressional subpoena - Joining a subversive group within 5 years of being naturalized (Think ISIS, Al-Qaeda) - Dishonorable military discharge.
A simply felony or misdemeanor ? Nope. You are either grossly misinformed or fear mongering all over this discussion. Which is it ?
Mexicans after 2016 can absolutely come to the US. They just need to enter a proper port of entry of submit the proper requests to get a proper visa, and apply for citizenship, in line with everyone else wanting to get in.
Trying to lie about Mexicans being barred entry into the US is why Trump got elected.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey guys! Republicans gerrymandered their way into Congress!
*checks map of Illinois 4th Congressional District*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Oh... damn.
This is your daily reminder that a "page 10" correction to the previous day's "Front page bombshell" is one of the many issues of the "Fake news" paradigm.
When the initial story gets widespread dissemination and the correction is all but ignored because it's no longer "News of the day", then the initial story is what people remember, and often quote later even after a correction has been issued.
Fake news is not just deliberate lies. It's many things. You'll be quite surprised to know that Fake news can also be rooted 100% in truth, if you simply omit key facts or context that are unfavorable to the narrative you're attempting to spin.
I don't hate America.
I bigger lie has never been told in all of Slashdot's history.
Try going to a physical public forum with a tin of red paint, a megaphone and an inflatable sex doll (inflated). See if your 1st Amendment rights stop them booting you out of the mall.
You're missing the point. If Trump is holding a Town Hall meeting at said Mall. But Mall cops are preventing from entering the Mall because I'm banned from it, then they are technically infringing the spirit of this ruling if not the letter. This is what people are trying to explain to you, but you are refusing to accept because it taints your anti-trump narrative.
The 1st doesn't mean you have an unlimited right to troll as much as you want, it just gives you a great deal of leeway before that line is crossed.
Except this ruling just said the opposite. You can troll Trump as much as you want, and there's nothing he can do about it. He has no right to block you. By proxy, this should extend to anyone doing the blocking, including the "hosts" of the public forum, aka Facebook/Twitter themselves.
I know this is complicated and you want to spin it to ORANGE MAN BAD! / EVERYONE ELSE GOOD!, but that's not how life works.
Private social media platform
The court just ruled it's a PUBLIC social media platform, insofar as Politician pages are concerned.
It's also been the logicial argument from the start : Twitter/Facebook have pretty much made their own virtual townsquares and can be argued to have "Monopolies" in their particular domains.
Remember when Slashdot was for Anti-trust laws being applied to big tech bullies ? The 90s were for sure better times than today.
Man does have a point. A politician cannot "block" you for being disruptive on his "public forum" page, but Facebook/Twitter can block you for being disruptive elsewhere on the site. Meaning in this case, Facebook/Twitter are by proxy blocking you from access to your politician's public forum.
This can't be either/or. Either Facebook/Twitter are public forums and thus need to be open to everyone based on 1st Amendment rights, or Facebook/Twitter need to simply shut down all Politician pages to remain private entities free to censor any one they dislike as they have been doing.
Any sort of "half measure" is just again the Left trying to have its cake and eat it too.
Also, why are you all over this discussion replying to every thread ? You're not even an American.
A few years ago, I would have been hard pressed to believe Allison Mack of Smallville fame would be 2nd in command of a sex trafficking operation.
Yet here we are.
Except you're wrong. Laws are not necessarily ethical or moral. Permissible by law doesn't mean it's "the right thing to do" at all.
Bad analogy time : someone in front of you at the grocery store falls down and hurts their foot. It's quite lawful to just walk by, even stretch your arm over them to grab some box of cereal and leave them there. But is it moral ?
No one misunderstands the purpose of the electric car.
People question the value of paying a premium for a supposedly "green" solution.
You're sold a reduction of emissions. Governements subsidize a reduction in emission. If you're not actually reducing emissions, that's a whole lot of money getting spent on things you're not receiving.
If it's anything I'd say it's annoyance at the narrative that gets pushed around here
Yes, we are annoyed at the msmash narrative pushed here, by known Internet trolls and liars like Kotaku and the Marxist game blogs, and then repeated as gospel by you.
Maybe you guys could actually look into things rather than take statements by "poor defenseless, but nonetheless strong and independant women!" at face value all the time.
Gamergate was about Nathan Grayson's unethical journalism until the victims turned it into something about "women being attacked". No dipshits, this is about the guy who wrote the piece without disclosing he was having sex with a person he was giving prominence to. Who that person is doesn't matter. What matters is Grayson's blatant disregard for proper journalistic practices.
Or at least admit what you're doing with Rock Paper Shotgun isn't journalism. Don't pretend you're the "gaming press" if you're just a crappy PR agency that gives coverage to anyone willing to give you favors.
The PC government also cancelled a large wind project,
Because those projects up here in Canada were born of corruption between the industry and the political branch. There was no need for Wind capacity, Ontario and Quebec both already produce much more power than they use. The wind contracts are costly, provide money to lobbyist who pushed for them and have no inherent value for the tax payer.
If anything, Quebec now needs to follow suit and cancel its own "wind turbine" projects which are privatized and a cash sink for tax payers. Move that money to actual productive use, we have plenty of cheaper, cleaner, Hydro power. It might not be as trendy as "wind!", but it's better.
Only uneducated fools who stick to "headlines" think this is a bad move, you environnementalists don't ever pay attention to the details to see if what you're pushing is even a good idea. It's always "HOW DARE YOU SIR!" faux-outrage at any steps, and money needs to be spent at all times even if it provides no actual value or does not even help.
... to give the money to those who don't.
If you oppose that, you might be one of the people who don't work. There's a really easy way to fix your issue : Get a job.
If it's unclear what the facts are... don't state things as fact then, which the initial Verge headline did. That's like one of the big problems with current day journalism, it's not based on facts.
Again : stop making this a right vs left thing. It's a bad thing regardless of your side of the political aisle.
Ever heard of "lying through omission" ? Yes, biased news is as bad as fake news.
Dead on accurate... after the fact. They changed their headline for one. It used to read :
"The FCC wants to charge you $225 to review your complaint".
Whereas it now reads :
"Democrats argue a new FCC rule would hinder consumers, but Commission says they got it wrong".
This is a typical tactic, where you post an initial story, with initial "wrong facts" and "sensational" headline. Get a massive ton of shares of social media and get the outrage rolling, and then silently update the story to be less biased/sensational when the initial surge of visits/shares has died down.
Make sure to hide the correction way down. The Verge's story has this paragraph now :
"Update and correction July 11th, 12:30PM ET: The article has been updated to include the FCCâ(TM)s response and to clarify that the informal complaints change was expressed by the congressmen; this article previously described the change as requiring consumers to pay a $225 fee, as stated in the letter."
So yes, The Verge's story was initially bad. It was just later amended to be "Oh wait, lol journalism, our bad". Why did you jump at "you right-wing" people right away and call it conspiracy ?
... is how The Verge is simply a Democrat mouthpiece that doesn't actually do any kind of Journalism. At least, that's the news if you weren't already aware about all these left-wing biased online blogs that try to pass themselves off as news these days.
Also INB4 "But muh Fox news". Yes, the state of reporting and journalism in the country is absolutely atrocious and going downhill.
WHAT YOU SAID: "if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen." But that is wholly false, and we are currently talking about natural citizens having their citizenship revoked.
How is it false ?
Birthright citizenship cannot be revoked, only naturalized citizens can be denaturalized. Otherwise, cite the statute. Again : exactly what I said in my initial post.
You have no idea what you are talking about
I was replying to someone who claimed "any legal infraction" was enough to cause revocation of citizenship.
So maybe next time, instead of being mad at me for reasons unknown (why did you even foe me ? again : what the heck have I done to you ?), try reading the context.
And when you say "false" try not repeating word for word what I said.
It is not a tarpit though. It's meant to prevent flooding of a host country with unproductive elements that are simply seeking a handout.
There's limited needs and capacity in host countries, and as such, immigration factors those needs and that capacity instead of simply accepting anyone that applies.
Sovereign. Nations.
One that is simpler and easier to navigate than most other sovereign nations in the world.
What's your point ?
Get in line, wait like everyone else. Skipping means you're likely to get deported and barred future entry. Coming back is likely to get you a felony prosecution. As it should for a sovereign nation.
You don't need ICE to fight gang violence. We already have laws which address it.
And who enforces those laws and deports criminals and illegal aliens ?
ICE.
Laws need enforcement. Enforcement requires enforcers. Don't confuse the laws with who enforces them.
I did state as much in my post. Did you fail to read beyond the first sentence before you interjected ?
Do you have "RedK deranagement syndrome" my orange dot friend ? What did I ever do to you anyway.
I am not misinformed, as you have provided no extra information that I did not provide myself. You're only proving me right here.
However, it's relatively difficult to legally enter the United States compared to other countries. The laws have been increasingly draconian since 9/11
The US has some of the least stringent immigration laws of any country. Canada has more restrictions on who can legally immigrate than the US for cripe's sake.
Technically, any legal infraction is reason enough to allow someone to have their legal status revoked.
This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked. That means if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen. There's 4 specific things that can lead to "Denaturalization" :
- Lying on your citizenship application.
- Refusing to conform to a congressional subpoena
- Joining a subversive group within 5 years of being naturalized (Think ISIS, Al-Qaeda)
- Dishonorable military discharge.
A simply felony or misdemeanor ? Nope. You are either grossly misinformed or fear mongering all over this discussion. Which is it ?
Jim Acosta ? Is that you ?
Mexicans after 2016 can absolutely come to the US. They just need to enter a proper port of entry of submit the proper requests to get a proper visa, and apply for citizenship, in line with everyone else wanting to get in.
Trying to lie about Mexicans being barred entry into the US is why Trump got elected.
> if you have a Green Card.
If you have a green card, you're not an illegal alien.
Thus this topic is not about you.
Why do some of you try so hard to conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants so much ?