Seems like saying "You have a right" to something is useless if it's foiled by geography of the internet.
If you have a right to free speech in the US, but your Chinese made computer and phone started automatically censoring you from criticizing the Chinese government or Foxconn, even in the US, I'm guessing we wouldn't be quibbling about issues of borders. You'd chuck your equipment out the window and buy new stuff of course, but if that somehow weren't an option (as it's not here), your next thought should be demanding the government do something to protect your rights.
Slashdotters seem unconcerned with the privacy rights of Europe. Maybe it's jealousy that we clearly aren't going to be granted that right, so fuck them and their slightly more citizen-friendly government? Maybe we just prefer to look down our noses and guffaw about "These idiots just don't get it!" That's fun I guess. But it doesn't strike me as insane on it's face, it's a good principle I support, and I don't get much kicks out of pretending I'm superior or jealousy. So I hope Europe figures out a way to enforce it.
Seems like this might be a prelude, figuring out if you do have that right, and they'll get into the technical details later which may or may not be possible. We aren't able to prevent 100% of the murders anywhere ever, but it's still a good idea to say "don't murder people." Establishing a legal right to be forgotten even if it's a company based overseas, I'm guessing the burden would be on citizens to sue, and courts to then determine if they were able to sue in that case?
I have no legal training in europe or anywhere else, IANAL, this is not a legal brief you are reading. Not sure why slashdotters always need to be reminded posts here aren't couched in legal brief language, but this is a disclaimer this is not. I don't care what the legal definition in Brussels is of "rights," I think it's pretty clear what I mean.
Certainly the Pharma Companies are not complaining . ..
Only when it's their product being artificially turned over. When it's the raw materials the FDA requires THEM to turn over, there's complaining. In quality control testing, the sterile, deionized water needed to have an expiration date added of something like a year from when it was received. We then needed to throw it out three months before the expiration date we had just made up for water. I'm sure they complain about the more expensive stuff.
I'd assume that complaining is all done through lobbyists though.
"Was the election hacked? The GOP says no because it won. The democrats respond with... actually breaking news, we cut back to the GOP who are defending the president's ability to punch the pope in the dick."
Then if the democrats ever win again,
"Was the election hacked? The GOP says liberal elitist hackers rigged the election. Democrats start to say something before the honorable senator from Iowa starts flinging his own poop at reporters, we go live to pooped-on reporter..."
If it were paper ballots, we wouldn't be having these constant discussions. It would instead be about voter intimidation at the ballot places. Wouldn't that be better?
The left wing violence list includes things like "throwing eggs" while the right wing violence list has "throwing acid."
I'm sure there are better sources for this information out there and I'm interested if anyone has any. I just did a quick google search on both.
At any rate, I can't fathom anyone who suggests violent college students are a serious threat. They're far less scary than Islamic terrorists, which are themselves factually less dangerous than armed toddlers. Don't be an asshole racist demagogue and go to the most wildly liberal campus in the united states and you'll have nothing to fear from college progressives.
Or do even! Not a goddamn hair on Milo or Coulters' heads were harmed! Fucking snowflakes...
The left wing in various contexts throughout history can censor things, yes, but here in the US at the moment? The right wing is the one that is in any power. States, federal, media... the struggle is between far right and center. We're debating how much religious organizations are allowed to discriminate against gays and contribute to political campaigns, not whether or not they should be taxed and prevented from addressing politics. There's a ban on federal funds going to health organizations that mention the word "abortion."
The closest thing I can see to left-wing censorship is a handful of relatively powerless college students acting rashly. And in each of those cases, the conservative outrage has been many times greater in magnitude.
Liberals and centrists sitting on the fence and saying "Now now, both sides can be equally bad" when clearly they're not BEING anywhere near equally bad is what's causing us to run into disaster.
I don't need to look it up, I've dealt with comcast and centurylink.
Meanwhile the water comes to my house without fail, the electricity at most flickers when there's a powerful storm, the roads outside my house were just repaved last month, and the US postal service brings me enough junk mail to wallpaper all the rooms in my house.
I'll admit that around where I live, we don't have many "TAXES ARE THEFT!" conservatives bent on proving government can't do anything by defunding every successful government program. I could see people elsewhere getting upset their tax moneys might possibly go to people downloading porn and sharia law videos and demanding it stop.
Hence the "people would need to actually pay attention to local government." State legislators are absurdly inept and corrupt because no one pays any attention to them except for special interests. I mean, I don't see that changing any time soon, so not much point in discussing it, but it's not like it's in the US constitution.
IIRC google realized that their ability to remain on top forever could be threatened by the fact that comcast was a middleman between google and users. Spending money to get rid of that middleman makes sense. With the death of net neutrality looming especially. "We're sorry, google and youtube are not available on your plan, but comcast-nbc-bing search with motionview is!"
I guess though google realized that will take a longer time than they need to be concerned with and they have enough money they can just buy off lobbyists or something.
Real person. I'm sure they are holding multiple chats at once based on the delays between responses, but it's still definitely better than being on the phone.
Probably because you're (I'm assuming) an American for whom titties in a newspaper would be a national crisis.
Right on both, but I personally have no problem with it. It's the only part of those newspapers I agree with.
I mean I'm sure UK folk like a good pair of titties as much as the rest of us, but equating a single weekly topless photo with internet porn is.. a little silly.
I wasn't equating them, I'm just guessing that the Daily Mail's brains would say "Hey, we can increase sales by banning internet porn maybe?"
Of topic, but if you have to deal with comcast service, the chat is far better. If accents annoy you there's that, but also waiting in front of a computer is less annoying than waiting with a phone up to your ear. YMMV.
I switched to centurylink from comcast. The technician said the comcast guys had cut the wires centurylink uses with no other purpose than to make it slightly harder to switch. Mayhaps the comcast technicians cut the wrong line?
Also, just to be clear, you're not renting your modem from comcast, are you? The way you phrased that makes it sound like you are, though being on slashdot, I would think you would know better than that. If you are renting, that's probably your problem. You're paying an outrageous rental fee on shitty equipment AND your internet is probably being used by a neighbor.
Why do I get the feeling this is funded by British "newspapers" like The Sun and others that have titties inside?
Either to increase their sales or just they're getting bored of constantly trying to convince the UK to abandon it's healthcare system and be more like the health utopia that is the US.
I'm sure I used my college e-mail address. The one they shut down and deleted immediately after graduation because it would save precious megabytes of storage space on their servers.
It likely would be much easier to "hack" than try to go through recovering it the normal way.
Seriously, must be a case of silicon valley mistaking itself for everyone else."Everyone is totally going to download the latest app because it's the hot new thing!"
I switched to a pay as you go plan for texts, thought "No problem, I'm on wifi all the time, I'll just switch to whatsapp." Realized no one I know actually uses whatsapp. Tried to get the maybe 5 people I regularly communicate with to download and set it up. "It's cheaper and you can use it from your computer."
All it did was make me realize my closest friends and family like not downloading a new app more than they like talking with me:-(
You don't feel sad or threatened because you assume the press you like has virtues that gawker didn't, won't make mistakes like gawker did, and therefore won't be brought down in the same way gawker was. That's a just world fallacy.
Whatever news sources you favor is run by humans who will have their own foibles and will make mistakes. If they're actually doing journalism, they will be making enemies too, who have a blueprint for how to take down news organizations they don't like. The journalism you like is more vulnerable to these type of attacks than you're willing to admit.
The ACLU holds it's nose in defending the KKK's right to speech. I'm able to hold my nose defending Gawker's freedom of press.
They're different in a lot of ways, I was only illustrating the point that "the defendant is awful" is a shitty reason to root against them.
The "they" was specifically the lawyers representing hogan. But "they" in the general nefarious forces also works probably. I didn't see anything about Thiel regretting taking down Gawker in this manner. American oligarchs now have a blueprint for shutting down press they don't like. These tactics will be used again. Slashdotters might not be so happy next time.
Thiel was funding any and all lawsuits against gawker before the hogan case expressly to shut the news organization down because of what they said about him.
You're right that gawker made serious errors in the Hogan case. Maybe they could have survived had they played that smarter. But you're living in a just world fallacy if you think that makes it okay or removes all freedom of press issues.
I'm sure in Russia, whenever there's a murdered journalist, citizens justify it by saying "Well, RT pointed out that one guy cheated on his wife and wasn't very patriotic, and he should have realized what would happen to him if he was rude to our president from all those other journalists. And we're fighting a war with Oceania at the moment, he shouldn't have been trying to rock the boat!"
I don't give a shit that Gawker was run by rude incompetent assholes who ignored the law, an oligarch shutting them down is definitely troubling in terms of freedom of press and speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like saying "You have a right" to something is useless if it's foiled by geography of the internet.
If you have a right to free speech in the US, but your Chinese made computer and phone started automatically censoring you from criticizing the Chinese government or Foxconn, even in the US, I'm guessing we wouldn't be quibbling about issues of borders. You'd chuck your equipment out the window and buy new stuff of course, but if that somehow weren't an option (as it's not here), your next thought should be demanding the government do something to protect your rights.
Slashdotters seem unconcerned with the privacy rights of Europe. Maybe it's jealousy that we clearly aren't going to be granted that right, so fuck them and their slightly more citizen-friendly government? Maybe we just prefer to look down our noses and guffaw about "These idiots just don't get it!" That's fun I guess. But it doesn't strike me as insane on it's face, it's a good principle I support, and I don't get much kicks out of pretending I'm superior or jealousy. So I hope Europe figures out a way to enforce it.
Seems like this might be a prelude, figuring out if you do have that right, and they'll get into the technical details later which may or may not be possible. We aren't able to prevent 100% of the murders anywhere ever, but it's still a good idea to say "don't murder people." Establishing a legal right to be forgotten even if it's a company based overseas, I'm guessing the burden would be on citizens to sue, and courts to then determine if they were able to sue in that case?
I have no legal training in europe or anywhere else, IANAL, this is not a legal brief you are reading. Not sure why slashdotters always need to be reminded posts here aren't couched in legal brief language, but this is a disclaimer this is not. I don't care what the legal definition in Brussels is of "rights," I think it's pretty clear what I mean.
Certainly the Pharma Companies are not complaining . . .
Only when it's their product being artificially turned over. When it's the raw materials the FDA requires THEM to turn over, there's complaining. In quality control testing, the sterile, deionized water needed to have an expiration date added of something like a year from when it was received. We then needed to throw it out three months before the expiration date we had just made up for water. I'm sure they complain about the more expensive stuff.
I'd assume that complaining is all done through lobbyists though.
And should be paper ballots.
"Was the election hacked? The GOP says no because it won. The democrats respond with... actually breaking news, we cut back to the GOP who are defending the president's ability to punch the pope in the dick."
Then if the democrats ever win again,
"Was the election hacked? The GOP says liberal elitist hackers rigged the election. Democrats start to say something before the honorable senator from Iowa starts flinging his own poop at reporters, we go live to pooped-on reporter..."
If it were paper ballots, we wouldn't be having these constant discussions. It would instead be about voter intimidation at the ballot places. Wouldn't that be better?
There have literally been over a thousand cataloged attacks from the right wing since the election.
Attacks from liberals on conservatives have been fewer, the chart one month goes up to ten!
The left wing violence list includes things like "throwing eggs" while the right wing violence list has "throwing acid."
I'm sure there are better sources for this information out there and I'm interested if anyone has any. I just did a quick google search on both.
At any rate, I can't fathom anyone who suggests violent college students are a serious threat. They're far less scary than Islamic terrorists, which are themselves factually less dangerous than armed toddlers. Don't be an asshole racist demagogue and go to the most wildly liberal campus in the united states and you'll have nothing to fear from college progressives.
Or do even! Not a goddamn hair on Milo or Coulters' heads were harmed! Fucking snowflakes...
It's both.
The left wing in various contexts throughout history can censor things, yes, but here in the US at the moment? The right wing is the one that is in any power. States, federal, media... the struggle is between far right and center. We're debating how much religious organizations are allowed to discriminate against gays and contribute to political campaigns, not whether or not they should be taxed and prevented from addressing politics. There's a ban on federal funds going to health organizations that mention the word "abortion."
The closest thing I can see to left-wing censorship is a handful of relatively powerless college students acting rashly. And in each of those cases, the conservative outrage has been many times greater in magnitude.
Liberals and centrists sitting on the fence and saying "Now now, both sides can be equally bad" when clearly they're not BEING anywhere near equally bad is what's causing us to run into disaster.
I don't need to look it up, I've dealt with comcast and centurylink.
Meanwhile the water comes to my house without fail, the electricity at most flickers when there's a powerful storm, the roads outside my house were just repaved last month, and the US postal service brings me enough junk mail to wallpaper all the rooms in my house.
I'll admit that around where I live, we don't have many "TAXES ARE THEFT!" conservatives bent on proving government can't do anything by defunding every successful government program. I could see people elsewhere getting upset their tax moneys might possibly go to people downloading porn and sharia law videos and demanding it stop.
Hence the "people would need to actually pay attention to local government." State legislators are absurdly inept and corrupt because no one pays any attention to them except for special interests. I mean, I don't see that changing any time soon, so not much point in discussing it, but it's not like it's in the US constitution.
IIRC google realized that their ability to remain on top forever could be threatened by the fact that comcast was a middleman between google and users. Spending money to get rid of that middleman makes sense. With the death of net neutrality looming especially. "We're sorry, google and youtube are not available on your plan, but comcast-nbc-bing search with motionview is!"
I guess though google realized that will take a longer time than they need to be concerned with and they have enough money they can just buy off lobbyists or something.
City governments. But then people would need to actually pay attention to local government.
Real person. I'm sure they are holding multiple chats at once based on the delays between responses, but it's still definitely better than being on the phone.
Probably because you're (I'm assuming) an American for whom titties in a newspaper would be a national crisis.
Right on both, but I personally have no problem with it. It's the only part of those newspapers I agree with.
I mean I'm sure UK folk like a good pair of titties as much as the rest of us, but equating a single weekly topless photo with internet porn is.. a little silly.
I wasn't equating them, I'm just guessing that the Daily Mail's brains would say "Hey, we can increase sales by banning internet porn maybe?"
Of topic, but if you have to deal with comcast service, the chat is far better. If accents annoy you there's that, but also waiting in front of a computer is less annoying than waiting with a phone up to your ear. YMMV.
No engineer in his/her right mind would ever even consider designing a self-driving car in such a way that it required instantaneous communication.
Ah, but see, we're talking about what Comcast's engineers would do...
I switched to centurylink from comcast. The technician said the comcast guys had cut the wires centurylink uses with no other purpose than to make it slightly harder to switch. Mayhaps the comcast technicians cut the wrong line?
Also, just to be clear, you're not renting your modem from comcast, are you? The way you phrased that makes it sound like you are, though being on slashdot, I would think you would know better than that. If you are renting, that's probably your problem. You're paying an outrageous rental fee on shitty equipment AND your internet is probably being used by a neighbor.
No, it's simpler than that. It's just a campaign to confuse people. It's pure FUD to get people to stop caring about it.
Why do I get the feeling this is funded by British "newspapers" like The Sun and others that have titties inside?
Either to increase their sales or just they're getting bored of constantly trying to convince the UK to abandon it's healthcare system and be more like the health utopia that is the US.
Except that's sad. I feel bad for those poor old trains. They never did anything to hurt anyone like blast a stupid midi file on someone's browser.
I'm sure I used my college e-mail address. The one they shut down and deleted immediately after graduation because it would save precious megabytes of storage space on their servers.
It likely would be much easier to "hack" than try to go through recovering it the normal way.
No, which is why it's so easy to hack.
I just hacked your myspace account and downloaded all the stuff you had on it.
Now I just made 500 more myspace accounts than you had.
Now I deleted them all.
You can't stop me.
Seriously, must be a case of silicon valley mistaking itself for everyone else."Everyone is totally going to download the latest app because it's the hot new thing!"
:-(
I switched to a pay as you go plan for texts, thought "No problem, I'm on wifi all the time, I'll just switch to whatsapp." Realized no one I know actually uses whatsapp. Tried to get the maybe 5 people I regularly communicate with to download and set it up. "It's cheaper and you can use it from your computer."
All it did was make me realize my closest friends and family like not downloading a new app more than they like talking with me
To sum up your rant, Bollea was wronged.
I know. I said as much.
My point is a billionaire still shut down an entire news organization because he didn't like it.
That strikes me as a scary thing for those of us who are not billionaires.
You don't feel sad or threatened because you assume the press you like has virtues that gawker didn't, won't make mistakes like gawker did, and therefore won't be brought down in the same way gawker was. That's a just world fallacy.
Whatever news sources you favor is run by humans who will have their own foibles and will make mistakes. If they're actually doing journalism, they will be making enemies too, who have a blueprint for how to take down news organizations they don't like. The journalism you like is more vulnerable to these type of attacks than you're willing to admit.
The ACLU holds it's nose in defending the KKK's right to speech. I'm able to hold my nose defending Gawker's freedom of press.
They're different in a lot of ways, I was only illustrating the point that "the defendant is awful" is a shitty reason to root against them.
The "they" was specifically the lawyers representing hogan. But "they" in the general nefarious forces also works probably. I didn't see anything about Thiel regretting taking down Gawker in this manner. American oligarchs now have a blueprint for shutting down press they don't like. These tactics will be used again. Slashdotters might not be so happy next time.
Thiel was funding any and all lawsuits against gawker before the hogan case expressly to shut the news organization down because of what they said about him.
You're right that gawker made serious errors in the Hogan case. Maybe they could have survived had they played that smarter. But you're living in a just world fallacy if you think that makes it okay or removes all freedom of press issues.
I'm sure in Russia, whenever there's a murdered journalist, citizens justify it by saying "Well, RT pointed out that one guy cheated on his wife and wasn't very patriotic, and he should have realized what would happen to him if he was rude to our president from all those other journalists. And we're fighting a war with Oceania at the moment, he shouldn't have been trying to rock the boat!"
I don't give a shit that Gawker was run by rude incompetent assholes who ignored the law, an oligarch shutting them down is definitely troubling in terms of freedom of press and speech.