The great innovation that created the web was hyperlinks. Since the 90s we have been able to not just say "I saw this on YouTube", but provide an actual link directly to the content!
For some reason some people don't use this facility to enhance their arguments.
This post reminds me of classic "rational" racism and homophobia. It tries to sound reasonable, by not explicitly stating the assumption that transgender people are not trustworthy.
Transgender people being deceptive is probably the oldest transphobic meme going.
The bulk of feminist philosophy is not in dispute. The third wave stuff is 10% of the total, and it's not even particularly controversial for most people. All it's really saying is that a white guy and a black guy have different issues with different solutions, because gender isn't the only thing to consider.
If you look past the Fox spin on this law it's obvious that it's just recognising a form of bullying. Bullying and harassment had been illegal for a very long time and repeatedly found to be compatible with the first amendment.
The US political scale is way off. What you call the far left is just the centre ground in other countries. To us the Democrats are the moderate right.
The hard right government in the UK recently published a report about how badly black people are treated by the justice system and vowed to do something about it. You know, the exact thing that BLM wants.
It's part of an effort to make nationalism more mainstream, by pretending that it already is the mainstream centrist view and everything else is extreme in comparison.
Lucky for them that there was another bakery near by. Unfortunately the market doesn't always provide alternatives, so this kind of discrimination can do unavoidable harm to people.
Imagine if you arrived at the hospital with your wife about to give birth, and they said "sorry we don't deliver white babies".
Cloud and VPS services are going to be hammered by this. It's a critical flaw for them and their systems do a massive amount of calling and switching in and out of the hypervisor and every running OS kernel.
Imagine your service suddenly and permanently losses 30% of its capacity. Hundreds of millions of Euros of computing power wiped out. Your customers are pissed because their bills are going up as their apps suddenly need more CPU cycles...
Anita Sarkeesian claiming anyone making a response video to her was harassement ring any bells to you ?
No, because it's fake news. Gamergaters saved archived copies of every post, every tweet she ever made, so come on, give us the link where she says that. Prove your claim RedK.
How would this create any more cases than there already are (i.e. very very few)? The bar is going to be higher than a standard slander case, and it seems like it will only be available when there is an election on, so if French politicians were interesting in using the legal system against each other this would be the least effective way to do it.
Plus if they do try to clog the system up with spurious cases, there will be the usual legal consequences for bringing baseless cases in bad faith, which can include fines and sanctions for the lawyers.
So you really think that France's legal system is so poor that this crazy scheme of yours would actually work?
It's the perpetual victim culture of the alt-right that is trying to redefine everything as harassment, so that nothing is harassment. That way they can do anything they like and just claim the victim is a snowflake.
It's also helpful to their victim narrative, where white guys are now the most oppressed group, and where people are encouraged to be offensive so a to make the extreme nationalist stuff more palatable.
What makes you think this law would only be usable by the government? Oh right, the bullshit summary.
I wonder if when the government decided to make libel a thing, people thought it would only be usable by government ministers.
Reading up on it, it seems that anyone will be able to petition a court, but the bar will be pretty high so that only easily and conclusively demonstrably fake news will get the fast-track treatment.
The web doesn't work like that. If it did, people wouldn't care so much when their favourite site gets demoted or removed from Google. People could just type the URL directly, right?
They wouldn't care when Facebook or Twitter bans one account, because they could just move to less popular services.
And they would be happy to have a Tor only service, because anyone can download the Tor browser and view it.
In the face of it, it seems like he wants a fast track legal procedure. The law already allows action against this kind of thing (slander/libel etc) but it often moves slowly and elections are a hard deadline.
It might actually be a good way to handle fake news. There will be the transparency and oversight of the legal system, with separation of politicians and judiciary. If the news isn't fake then trying to abuse the system is unlikely to end well for the abuser.
Probably worth trying. My main concern would be the potential cost of mounting a defence. In the interests of democracy it should be free for both sides.
People with a lot of followers online also have some responsibly to avoid harassing people, even if unintentionally. For example, often when some YouTuber makes a video about some random tweet or Facebook post, the result is that some of their hundreds of thousands of viewers will go and harass the author.
Obviously there is a balance between legitimate criticism and discussion, and the actions of a relative few. But the reality is that most of these videos are just rage-bait, there to make some easy cash from a ten minute unscripted rant to camera. With power comes responsibly and all that.
Slashdot Mirror
And currently they are all stealing his money. Money earned during the claim isn't returned, it stays with the people who made the fraudulent claims.
Hilariously you just described this story's comments exactly.
The great innovation that created the web was hyperlinks. Since the 90s we have been able to not just say "I saw this on YouTube", but provide an actual link directly to the content!
For some reason some people don't use this facility to enhance their arguments.
Wait, did you just refute his argument with facts and NOT calling him literally Hitler?!?
Unpossible!
This post reminds me of classic "rational" racism and homophobia. It tries to sound reasonable, by not explicitly stating the assumption that transgender people are not trustworthy.
Transgender people being deceptive is probably the oldest transphobic meme going.
He didn't say that specific instance, you made that bit up... Just saying, of anyone is inventing straw men here, it's you.
The bulk of feminist philosophy is not in dispute. The third wave stuff is 10% of the total, and it's not even particularly controversial for most people. All it's really saying is that a white guy and a black guy have different issues with different solutions, because gender isn't the only thing to consider.
That's literally all intersectionality is.
If you look past the Fox spin on this law it's obvious that it's just recognising a form of bullying. Bullying and harassment had been illegal for a very long time and repeatedly found to be compatible with the first amendment.
The US political scale is way off. What you call the far left is just the centre ground in other countries. To us the Democrats are the moderate right.
The hard right government in the UK recently published a report about how badly black people are treated by the justice system and vowed to do something about it. You know, the exact thing that BLM wants.
So it's fine to force a company to recognise a gay marriage and pay out a pension, but not okay to force them to provide cake baking services.
Can you explain that logic?
It's part of an effort to make nationalism more mainstream, by pretending that it already is the mainstream centrist view and everything else is extreme in comparison.
Lucky for them that there was another bakery near by. Unfortunately the market doesn't always provide alternatives, so this kind of discrimination can do unavoidable harm to people.
Imagine if you arrived at the hospital with your wife about to give birth, and they said "sorry we don't deliver white babies".
Cloud and VPS services are going to be hammered by this. It's a critical flaw for them and their systems do a massive amount of calling and switching in and out of the hypervisor and every running OS kernel.
Imagine your service suddenly and permanently losses 30% of its capacity. Hundreds of millions of Euros of computing power wiped out. Your customers are pissed because their bills are going up as their apps suddenly need more CPU cycles...
I'd like to see an option to return my CPUs for a free fix. For some people the performance loss is significant.
It won't happen because they don't make CPUs for those old sockets any more, and they aren't going to give me a free motherboard and RAM upgrade.
Anita Sarkeesian claiming anyone making a response video to her was harassement ring any bells to you ?
No, because it's fake news. Gamergaters saved archived copies of every post, every tweet she ever made, so come on, give us the link where she says that. Prove your claim RedK.
There is a whole range of statements where the relativism of opinions is real and 'fake news' is interpreted so broadly that it covers a whole range.
Fake news is not a "wrong" opinion. It's news that is factually incorrect, a deliberate lie designed to push a specific agenda.
Just because some people don't understand that (*cough*trump*cough*) doesn't change anything, at least not legally.
How would this create any more cases than there already are (i.e. very very few)? The bar is going to be higher than a standard slander case, and it seems like it will only be available when there is an election on, so if French politicians were interesting in using the legal system against each other this would be the least effective way to do it.
Plus if they do try to clog the system up with spurious cases, there will be the usual legal consequences for bringing baseless cases in bad faith, which can include fines and sanctions for the lawyers.
So you really think that France's legal system is so poor that this crazy scheme of yours would actually work?
I know you are probably joking... But just in case, that sounds like a textbook abusive relationship.
It's the perpetual victim culture of the alt-right that is trying to redefine everything as harassment, so that nothing is harassment. That way they can do anything they like and just claim the victim is a snowflake.
It's also helpful to their victim narrative, where white guys are now the most oppressed group, and where people are encouraged to be offensive so a to make the extreme nationalist stuff more palatable.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entr...
No. That's bullshit. There is objective truth. There is the scientific method. And the entire point of a court is to determine fact from fiction.
If we decide that truth is subjective, there will be no crime, no justice, no science, no democracy.
What makes you think this law would only be usable by the government? Oh right, the bullshit summary.
I wonder if when the government decided to make libel a thing, people thought it would only be usable by government ministers.
Reading up on it, it seems that anyone will be able to petition a court, but the bar will be pretty high so that only easily and conclusively demonstrably fake news will get the fast-track treatment.
The web doesn't work like that. If it did, people wouldn't care so much when their favourite site gets demoted or removed from Google. People could just type the URL directly, right?
They wouldn't care when Facebook or Twitter bans one account, because they could just move to less popular services.
And they would be happy to have a Tor only service, because anyone can download the Tor browser and view it.
Fake news only works when people see it.
The US is far worse. This requires a judge to sign off on it, with consequences if you lie. In the US you can spam DMCA notices all day with impunity.
In the face of it, it seems like he wants a fast track legal procedure. The law already allows action against this kind of thing (slander/libel etc) but it often moves slowly and elections are a hard deadline.
It might actually be a good way to handle fake news. There will be the transparency and oversight of the legal system, with separation of politicians and judiciary. If the news isn't fake then trying to abuse the system is unlikely to end well for the abuser.
Probably worth trying. My main concern would be the potential cost of mounting a defence. In the interests of democracy it should be free for both sides.
People with a lot of followers online also have some responsibly to avoid harassing people, even if unintentionally. For example, often when some YouTuber makes a video about some random tweet or Facebook post, the result is that some of their hundreds of thousands of viewers will go and harass the author.
Obviously there is a balance between legitimate criticism and discussion, and the actions of a relative few. But the reality is that most of these videos are just rage-bait, there to make some easy cash from a ten minute unscripted rant to camera. With power comes responsibly and all that.