This ain't a cop, this is basically the same as a politician. Cops still have this air of usefulness to people, where they actually do something good, the whole "serve and protect" thing.
Politicians on the other hand... I doubt anyone would as much as raise his head if you neutralize one.
Facebook could get interesting. Considering that more and more companies use Facebook as a convenient way to sign in to save themselves the hassle to verify who they're dealing with and offload it to FB, that would make it quite a bit tricky to use a lot of webpages.
And even if it doesn't mean shutout, it at least means creating a new account.
What did you expect after all we gotten out of this dog-and-pony Show?
They asked for comments, then decided to simply ignore them because all the astroturfing, the propaganda and all the other shit they tried failed to convince anyone that it's a good idea to hand the ISPs that already go out of their way to gouge their customers blind the ability to determine what their customers should or should not see, of course with the intent to promote their own (failing) TV business over the emerging and obviously more popular internet based streaming services.
When you bullshit people too long, you can expect them to react accordingly. Personally, I think it's quite a restrained reaction. I would not brake if I saw that bastard in front of me on the road. At least not until my car is ON him.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. If anything, eliminating net neutrality would cast their dominant position in concrete, with google et al being able to afford "priority lanes" for their content while emerging new contenders and other sources for information would be struggling against slower and worse service.
If there is a tyrant and you shoot him, someone will come to replace him. You shoot that tyrant again. Do it 2-3 times and nobody will want to take the position, unless they are also willing to change what made you shoot their predecessors.
You cannot kill ideas. Yes. But you can kill those that implement them, until nobody is willing to do it anymore.
Buy up all ISPs in his area and simply refuse service to him. Since it's not based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference or anything it should be no problem to deny him service.
Hey, don't badmouth free market! You too can buy and sell political hos just like the corporations do. If you're too poor to do it, well, become a politician as well and let the invisible hand fist you.
Since the political system ensures politicians need LOTS of money if they want to have at least a remote chance of being elected, this basically means that corporations decide what you can vote for.
Essentially, your choice is whether you want this corporate shill that is in the pockets of corporations A, B and C to rule you, or whether you want that corporate shill in the pockets of corporations B, C and D to be it.
Yes, of course corporations buy both sides. There is no zero, so playing rouge et noir has no drawbacks, since the game is also rigged and doesn't only pay out 1 for 1.
What this means, though, is that the only ones that can continue to make videos (unless they're rich or have some independent source of income) are those that get paid to make those videos by "supporters". Well, take a wild guess where this is heading.
Because if you want me to support you, you better broadcast a message that I like!
If this was about advertisers being worried they might get associated with "bad" videos, the solution is very trivial: Postpone the payout of any money to content creators by, say, a month. Enough time that a lot of viewers would complain about it being inappropriate for kids, and you have plenty of time not only to remove the video but also yank the account (along with not paying a dime).
After no more than 2 months, no accounts trying to lure kids for financial gains will exist anymore.
What's left after this is the trolls who do it for shits and giggles and not money. For them, the easy solution is to not offer any videos from new content creators to kids in their "trending" or "related" bar so they'd have to go out of their way to see it, but show it to parents who can sign up for something like this. You think you won't find enough helicopter parents with nothing better to do than to policy what all kids should or should not see? Think again.
What they deem appropriate can then go on to kids' trending/related/recommended feed, the rest gets shadowbanned from kids' accounts and gets only shown to adults with... odd tastes.
Now YouTube is the same boring, bland mix of idiotic home videos and worthless whitewashed commentary TV has become. Anything that could remotely be controversial or an invitation for a debate is gone.
Slashdot Mirror
Move to Italy, I heard a lot of jobs are going to need replacements there!
By the quality of your writing, I'd say you might be qualified enough.
This ain't a cop, this is basically the same as a politician. Cops still have this air of usefulness to people, where they actually do something good, the whole "serve and protect" thing.
Politicians on the other hand... I doubt anyone would as much as raise his head if you neutralize one.
Facebook could get interesting. Considering that more and more companies use Facebook as a convenient way to sign in to save themselves the hassle to verify who they're dealing with and offload it to FB, that would make it quite a bit tricky to use a lot of webpages.
And even if it doesn't mean shutout, it at least means creating a new account.
What did you expect after all we gotten out of this dog-and-pony Show?
They asked for comments, then decided to simply ignore them because all the astroturfing, the propaganda and all the other shit they tried failed to convince anyone that it's a good idea to hand the ISPs that already go out of their way to gouge their customers blind the ability to determine what their customers should or should not see, of course with the intent to promote their own (failing) TV business over the emerging and obviously more popular internet based streaming services.
When you bullshit people too long, you can expect them to react accordingly. Personally, I think it's quite a restrained reaction. I would not brake if I saw that bastard in front of me on the road. At least not until my car is ON him.
All is fair in internet and war.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. If anything, eliminating net neutrality would cast their dominant position in concrete, with google et al being able to afford "priority lanes" for their content while emerging new contenders and other sources for information would be struggling against slower and worse service.
Well, if your public servants fail to do their job, it's an unfortunate necessity to remind them who they're working for.
If that gets the problem solved...
If there is a tyrant and you shoot him, someone will come to replace him. You shoot that tyrant again. Do it 2-3 times and nobody will want to take the position, unless they are also willing to change what made you shoot their predecessors.
You cannot kill ideas. Yes. But you can kill those that implement them, until nobody is willing to do it anymore.
The Slowloris protection would probably kick you off first.
Let's just agree on "A speed slow enough to do the TCP handshake with actual hands".
A disability he can immediately cure by stepping down.
Buy up all ISPs in his area and simply refuse service to him. Since it's not based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference or anything it should be no problem to deny him service.
Hey, don't badmouth free market! You too can buy and sell political hos just like the corporations do. If you're too poor to do it, well, become a politician as well and let the invisible hand fist you.
Since the political system ensures politicians need LOTS of money if they want to have at least a remote chance of being elected, this basically means that corporations decide what you can vote for.
Essentially, your choice is whether you want this corporate shill that is in the pockets of corporations A, B and C to rule you, or whether you want that corporate shill in the pockets of corporations B, C and D to be it.
Yes, of course corporations buy both sides. There is no zero, so playing rouge et noir has no drawbacks, since the game is also rigged and doesn't only pay out 1 for 1.
So far the theory.
What this means, though, is that the only ones that can continue to make videos (unless they're rich or have some independent source of income) are those that get paid to make those videos by "supporters". Well, take a wild guess where this is heading.
Because if you want me to support you, you better broadcast a message that I like!
If this was about advertisers being worried they might get associated with "bad" videos, the solution is very trivial: Postpone the payout of any money to content creators by, say, a month. Enough time that a lot of viewers would complain about it being inappropriate for kids, and you have plenty of time not only to remove the video but also yank the account (along with not paying a dime).
After no more than 2 months, no accounts trying to lure kids for financial gains will exist anymore.
What's left after this is the trolls who do it for shits and giggles and not money. For them, the easy solution is to not offer any videos from new content creators to kids in their "trending" or "related" bar so they'd have to go out of their way to see it, but show it to parents who can sign up for something like this. You think you won't find enough helicopter parents with nothing better to do than to policy what all kids should or should not see? Think again.
What they deem appropriate can then go on to kids' trending/related/recommended feed, the rest gets shadowbanned from kids' accounts and gets only shown to adults with ... odd tastes.
Because our economy doesn't need responsible adults but adult kids with credit cards that are legally fully responsible for their irresponsibility.
The price paid was too high, though.
Now YouTube is the same boring, bland mix of idiotic home videos and worthless whitewashed commentary TV has become. Anything that could remotely be controversial or an invitation for a debate is gone.
I've tried, but pound for pound, coal simply has the higher calorific value.
And they've been shown to be way easier to handle after being served sweet alcoholic drinks, after merely 15 minutes.
Yes. That's it. No more free movies or songs, and we all have to buy them now. Nobody can evade the MAFIAA anymore.
(please let them believe it, please let them believe it, please let them believe it, ...)
Really? Taken or single?
Hey, I'd finally have a boyfriend who has all the latest games and videos!
Same reason women have fat friends, so they're the skinny one.
Really? Poor you, can't find any living chicks that hold still for the couple seconds you need?
Now, pull that femur out of your ass and close the grave, will ya? And for fuck's sake, stop screaming, you're in a graveyard!