YouTube has announced a more formal and wider set of sanctions it's prepared to level on any creator that starts to post videos that are harmful to viewers
Yes, Google has full right to do what they please with their servers and services. Just wish that they — and other people defending this right of theirs — were consistent and allowed other people and companies to exercise the same rights.
I understand, why Google is doing this. What I don't understand, is the mentality of the fellow Slashdotters — the so-called "Liberals" among them.
So burning is their desire to "stick it" to Trump, they are embracing the FBI using their flimsy warrant-applications to get to spy on Americans under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, monopolies — everything, which they (mistakenly) believe, will help them fight this imaginary "alt-right".
Google Executives Are Floating a Plan To Fight Fake News on Facebook and Twitter
Such collusion among monopolies to control the flow of information should have been denounced by all Slashdotters, and attracted attention of the Justice Department enforcing anti-trust laws...
Governor Andrew Cuomo unveiled a plan earlier this month to develop $6 billion of offshore wind projects off the southern coast of Long Island by 2028
The governor of the most corrupt state in the union announcing plans to spend $6 billion more of taxpayers' dollars on a project no one wants badly enough to voluntarily put their own money into.
scientists revealed it could [emphasis mine] also release massive amounts of mercury
And 15 minutes could save you 15% or more...
When, 10 years from now, this latest scare-mongering fails to materialize like countlessothers before it, the respectable scientists among Slashdotters will refuse to own it, because it was not a scientific statement.
On that matter, the statistics among in chess offers a similar proof — the far more "patriarchal" societies of Eastern Europe and China, where women are still expected to look pretty and cook dinner — have many more prominent female players than the US does...
Whether the Feminism and the endless dollars spent on "womyn studies" in various colleges are to actually be blamed, these endeavors certainly have not helped matters.
Clinton was never indicted for any crime other than obstruction of justice.
When debating whether or not to impeach him, Congress considered four accusations: two independent perjury charges, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Of these four, two had enough votes to impeach:
One count of perjury
Lying to the grand jury about:
the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
his attempts to tamper with witnesses
One count of obstruction of justice
... in the case of Paula Jones, by:
encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
I urge you to read up the Wikipedia article on the matter...
You're also incorrectly assuming that I am a democrat, it seems. I don't care whether Harry Reid or Schumer wanted Comey fired.
Whatever you personally think, my point stands: when the President faces calls — from both supporters and the opposition — to fire an official, his actually firing the official can not reasonably be suspected of being criminal.
Yeah, he may have done it to better obstruct justice, but that's unlikely. And, most importantly, you still don't have anything to accuse him of in the first place — what crime was he trying to prevent uncovering by this obstruction you allege?
It is evident that Trump tried to get Comey to stop the investigation into Manafort and other members of the Trump campaign
Manafort quit Trump's campaign in August 2016. You need something better than an unsupported claim of it being "evident", that Trump still cared about him in June 2017 — cared so much, he fired head of FBI over it.
And yet we can see that many people are trying to undermine that investigation too
You keep bringing up Clinton, as if that case was the same — it was not. With Clinton the primary charge was obvious and well-known — he was credibly accused by multiple women of sexual harassment and outright rape. What, I ask you for the last time, is the primary accusation against Trump?
people who are anti-regulation and that's why they support a company that ignores regulations
Well then his comments on 'supporters of Uber who are anti-regulation' doesn't apply to you I'd think.
You may be separating people, who support anyone flaunting oppressive regulations, from people who support Uber, but such separation makes no sense.
As with my KKK example, the support is for the Freedom of Speech — but not for the lynching. Similarly, these pro-taxi regulations should be abolished even if people/companies benefiting from the abolition are proponents of some other evil of their own.
If I am a mechanic working on an engine I would rather see the manual projected directly on my eye than having to take a break to walk away to refer to a manual sitting on a desk.
Yes, a perfectly valid use case — for any "blue collar" worker, whose hands may legitimately be dirty during work. Whoever he works for.
the executives might have to settle with a smaller yacht
And then your inner Che Guevara tilted your hand and you went on an anti-Capitalism rant.
And a completely misguided rant it is, because auto-repair shops in the US are overwhelmingly privately owned. With the exception of a few franchises (like Midas or Meineke) — and even those are usually owned by the franchisee — there is no CEO to speak of.
We should aim for 100% productivity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
I don't see, where the "27/7" comes from, but we certainly should aim for being as productive as possible while we are working. If a simple electronic gizmo can help it — marvelous.
people who are anti-regulation and that's why they support a company that ignores regulations.
I must be a person you are alluding to. I am against regulations — but not pro Uber.
I argue in favor of liberty — such as the freedom of offering a ride to a willing customer in exchange for his money. Any "regulation" or law standing in the way of that, is evil and to be abolished.
I fail to see, how Uber being assholes "cuts my legs" at all — because I do not tie the liberty to any particular entity exercising it. Are you suggesting, we abolish Freedom of Speech, because it protects KKK as well as investigative journalism?
The very thought of yours, that such "cutting off" may be taking place, reveals you (and the moderators, who've granted your post such acclaim) to be people of rather questionable logical skills at best and ethics at worst.
That is not true at all. Bill Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice (perjury).
You made two mistakes:
What I said is true
"Obstruction of justice" can't (normally) be the primary charge. You attempt at counter example is invalid — in the case of Bill Clinton, the primary charge was sexual assault (of Paula Jones).
Perjury was a separate charge
Clinton was impeached for perjury (lying) to grand jury and obstruction of justice. Yeah, I agree, that this is not important.
I would consider the firing of Comey to be obstruction of justice
Of course, you would — such is your hatred of Trump. And this, too, presumes, Trump was guilty (of something else), was afraid Comey would uncover it, and fired him to avoid the uncovering. For this to make sense, you still need to show, what that "something else" could possibly have been. Until you can state an actual (primary) charge, your complaints of "obstruction" make no sense.
Further, what if I told you, multiple Democrats demanded Comey's firing months and days before Trump done did it? Here:
Reid (D, Nevada): "Comey should resign!"
Sen. Harry Reid has called for FBI Director James Comey to resign for allegedly withholding information on President-elect Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. Reid, who was a fierce opponent of Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, which many believe cost her the election, told MSNBC on Saturday that he believes the FBI knew all along that Russia was helping Trump and deliberately did nothing about it.
Schumer (D, New York): I've lost confidence in FBI director
Sen. Charles Schumer is joining a growing chorus of criticism over FBI Director James Comey's decision to alert lawmakers to new emails potentially linked to the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server. “I do not have confidence in him any longer,”
Maxine Waters (D, CA), Hank Johnson (D, GA): “The FBI director has no credibility,”
“The FBI director has no credibility,” said Rep. Maxine Waters of California.
“My confidence in the FBI director’s ability to lead this agency has been shaken,” said Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia.
Now, what if I told you, that in the Act's over two centuries of existence, only 2 people were indicted under it (in 1802 and 1852)? And neither of them convicted? You may as well bring up anti-sodomy laws, which Trump may well have violated too, in his wilder days...
Now, if we start using the Act, we ought to begin not with Trump, who's communications with any foreign government was entirely ordinary, and protected by the First Amendment, but with folks like Hanoi Jane (who went to Vietnam while the US was in actual war with the country), or Jesse Jackson (for his, ahem, intercourse with Fidel Castro)?
Are you sure, you want to throw those folks into the furnace of your hatred of Trump?
It surely is, but — like "resisting arrest" — it can't be the primary one. Which crime was it, that the "justice" trying to prosecute, when it was unduly obstructed?
it's pretty clear he's been stepping on the toes of the FBI
When your only rebuttal is the opponent's sources, you are usually done for. Because none of them are lying, nor have any obvious conflict of interest. But, hey, how about the below citations, this time from unimpeachable sources?
FBI agents discussing "insurance" policy in case Trump wins
Later in a text from August 15, 2016, Strzok tells Page: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . "
FBI agents talking of "secret society" to sabotage Trump
"... an exchange between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page in which one noted: “Are you even going to give out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the secret society.”
Senior agent reworded"gross negligence" into "extreme carelessness" to help Clinton avoid prosecution
“A draft statement former FBI Director James Comey prepared in anticipation of concluding the Hillary Clinton email case without criminal charges was heavily edited to change the ‘tone and substance’ of the remarks, a Republican senator said Thursday. Some of the edits proposed to the May 2016 draft, obtained by The Associated Press, appear to soften the gravity of the bureau’s findings. Comey, for instance, initially wrote that the FBI believed that Clinton and her aides were ‘grossly negligent’ in their handling of classified information, language also contained in the relevant criminal statute."
Comey admitting to orchestrating a leak
"James B. Comey’s testimony on Thursday that he orchestrated the disclosure of his account of his discussions with President Trump"
Secrets are detrimental to a free society, and they should be kept to an absolute minimum
Even at "absolute minimum", there will still be secrets.
Stop being imperialistic
Ah, yes — time for using (over)loaded terms in rhetoric...
legalize drugs
Do drug-related prosecutions disproportionately require sealed warrants or FISA-approved surveillance? I don't think so.
get money out of politics
Ah, so this, is what contributes to secrecy in courts?..
have shell corporation ownership be public record
Yeah, because anonymity is the root of all evil.
and the need for the government to have secrets that last any long amount of time
Even if the time they last shortens because we implement all of your wise suggestions, the secrets would still be plentiful and the need to maintain them for some time (initially) remain. So we'll still need secret hearings in regular courts and/or courts dedicated to hearings on secret matters.
The cited "Trump's own words" — about the government's apparatus being far too big to be productive and its headcount overblown — make perfect sense.
As usual, the Chicago public school teacher calling himself PopeRatzo fails to anchor his seething contempt for Republicans in general and Trump in particular to any semblance of reason.
I loved working from home, when I could, but occasional socializing in person is still a must. Neither e-mail, nor IM, nor audio can properly convey all the subtle details of smiling and other body-language. Smilies, emojis and memes are a crutch... Video is better, but it is still not as good as the real thing.
As a result, for example, your rejection of a genuinely bad idea can get easily misconstrued as meanness or vendetta against whoever proposed it. People slowly grow to resent each other — meeting in person, whether for work or just for a "happy hour", is crucial to maintain good relations.
The cleansing of the FBI, which you accuse Trump of performing/contemplating, would target people to for being disloyal to him, but those so loyal to Hillary Clinton, that they were willing to subvert the democratic process by any means necessary, including leaks and other abuses of their offices.
To allude, as you do, that this is simply Trump's vendetta against "true patriots", is exactly the bullshit you claim to be so adept at discerning.
Trump himself may be indicted in the upcoming months
Whenever I encounter anyone espousing such idea, I always ask them: "indicted for what?" For some reason, I'm yet to hear a coherent answer... Once people realize, there is no such crime as "collusion", they tend to shut up...
You are next — please, elaborate, which criminal statue(s) you suspect President Trump to have violated. Not asking for proof — just state the actual accusation, please — the crime(s) he's committed. I'll wait...
... by the corruption among top FBI officials — an important omission in your comment.
Not to defend FISA, but corruption of law-enforcement officers is a problem civilization faced for as long as law-enforcement existed. By itself, what happened may be an argument for improving the checks-and-balances mechanisms of FISA, but not for its outright abolition.
There is no place for a FISA (Secret Courts) in a free society.
A dubious statement... Are you saying, a free society can not have secrets? Ever heard of sealed warrants? Or of hearings — in regular courts — on matters so sensitive, a judge may order reporters out?..
And before Election Day, the F.B.I. reached an agreement to pay Mr. Steele to continue his research, though that plan was scrapped after the dossier was published.
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow I'm sure, Che Guevara will not be deemed offensive...
Yes, Google has full right to do what they please with their servers and services. Just wish that they — and other people defending this right of theirs — were consistent and allowed other people and companies to exercise the same rights.
I understand, why Google is doing this. What I don't understand, is the mentality of the fellow Slashdotters — the so-called "Liberals" among them.
So burning is their desire to "stick it" to Trump, they are embracing the FBI using their flimsy warrant-applications to get to spy on Americans under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, monopolies — everything, which they (mistakenly) believe, will help them fight this imaginary "alt-right".
The only silver lining in all of this is that — after decades of accusing those who call it that of "war-mongering" — Russia is, finally, recognized as an adversary .
Such collusion among monopolies to control the flow of information should have been denounced by all Slashdotters, and attracted attention of the Justice Department enforcing anti-trust laws...
In many debates — indeed, in nearly all debates on politics — the intent of each debater is not to convince the opponent, but rather the audience.
Is it?
Let me repeat, what I wrote — for you and the reading-challenged moderators, with emphasis:
The governor of the most corrupt state in the union announcing plans to spend $6 billion more of taxpayers' dollars on a project no one wants badly enough to voluntarily put their own money into.
Slashdot cheers.
And 15 minutes could save you 15% or more...
When, 10 years from now, this latest scare-mongering fails to materialize like countless others before it, the respectable scientists among Slashdotters will refuse to own it, because it was not a scientific statement.
Indeed, it is not.
If the females in India — where the society is, if anything, only more "patriarchal" than in the US, with the sex disparity growing — are achieving such results, then whatever is holding American ones back, can not be "patriarchy".
On that matter, the statistics among in chess offers a similar proof — the far more "patriarchal" societies of Eastern Europe and China, where women are still expected to look pretty and cook dinner — have many more prominent female players than the US does...
Whether the Feminism and the endless dollars spent on "womyn studies" in various colleges are to actually be blamed, these endeavors certainly have not helped matters.
When debating whether or not to impeach him, Congress considered four accusations: two independent perjury charges, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Of these four, two had enough votes to impeach:
One count of perjury Lying to the grand jury about:- the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
- prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
- prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
- his attempts to tamper with witnesses
One count of obstruction of justice ... in the case of Paula Jones, by:I urge you to read up the Wikipedia article on the matter...
Whatever you personally think, my point stands: when the President faces calls — from both supporters and the opposition — to fire an official, his actually firing the official can not reasonably be suspected of being criminal.
Yeah, he may have done it to better obstruct justice, but that's unlikely. And, most importantly, you still don't have anything to accuse him of in the first place — what crime was he trying to prevent uncovering by this obstruction you allege?
Manafort quit Trump's campaign in August 2016. You need something better than an unsupported claim of it being "evident", that Trump still cared about him in June 2017 — cared so much, he fired head of FBI over it.
You keep bringing up Clinton, as if that case was the same — it was not. With Clinton the primary charge was obvious and well-known — he was credibly accused by multiple women of sexual harassment and outright rape. What, I ask you for the last time, is the primary accusation against Trump?
You may be separating people, who support anyone flaunting oppressive regulations, from people who support Uber, but such separation makes no sense.
As with my KKK example, the support is for the Freedom of Speech — but not for the lynching. Similarly, these pro-taxi regulations should be abolished even if people/companies benefiting from the abolition are proponents of some other evil of their own.
Yes, a perfectly valid use case — for any "blue collar" worker, whose hands may legitimately be dirty during work. Whoever he works for.
And then your inner Che Guevara tilted your hand and you went on an anti-Capitalism rant.
And a completely misguided rant it is, because auto-repair shops in the US are overwhelmingly privately owned. With the exception of a few franchises (like Midas or Meineke) — and even those are usually owned by the franchisee — there is no CEO to speak of.
I don't see, where the "27/7" comes from, but we certainly should aim for being as productive as possible while we are working. If a simple electronic gizmo can help it — marvelous.
I must be a person you are alluding to. I am against regulations — but not pro Uber.
I argue in favor of liberty — such as the freedom of offering a ride to a willing customer in exchange for his money. Any "regulation" or law standing in the way of that, is evil and to be abolished.
I fail to see, how Uber being assholes "cuts my legs" at all — because I do not tie the liberty to any particular entity exercising it. Are you suggesting, we abolish Freedom of Speech, because it protects KKK as well as investigative journalism?
The very thought of yours, that such "cutting off" may be taking place, reveals you (and the moderators, who've granted your post such acclaim) to be people of rather questionable logical skills at best and ethics at worst.
You made two mistakes:
What I said is true "Obstruction of justice" can't (normally) be the primary charge. You attempt at counter example is invalid — in the case of Bill Clinton, the primary charge was sexual assault (of Paula Jones). Perjury was a separate charge Clinton was impeached for perjury (lying) to grand jury and obstruction of justice. Yeah, I agree, that this is not important.Of course, you would — such is your hatred of Trump. And this, too, presumes, Trump was guilty (of something else), was afraid Comey would uncover it, and fired him to avoid the uncovering. For this to make sense, you still need to show, what that "something else" could possibly have been. Until you can state an actual (primary) charge, your complaints of "obstruction" make no sense.
Further, what if I told you, multiple Democrats demanded Comey's firing months and days before Trump done did it? Here:
Reid (D, Nevada): "Comey should resign!" Sen. Harry Reid has called for FBI Director James Comey to resign for allegedly withholding information on President-elect Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. Reid, who was a fierce opponent of Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, which many believe cost her the election, told MSNBC on Saturday that he believes the FBI knew all along that Russia was helping Trump and deliberately did nothing about it. Schumer (D, New York): I've lost confidence in FBI director Sen. Charles Schumer is joining a growing chorus of criticism over FBI Director James Comey's decision to alert lawmakers to new emails potentially linked to the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server.“I do not have confidence in him any longer,” Maxine Waters (D, CA), Hank Johnson (D, GA): “The FBI director has no credibility,” “The FBI director has no credibility,” said Rep. Maxine Waters of California.
“My confidence in the FBI director’s ability to lead this agency has been shaken,” said Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia.
If the opposition demanded the man be fired, they can't turn around and cry "crime!" when he finally is fired. And Trump had perfectly good reasons of his own to do it — the leaking of information alone is a fireable offense.
You are referring to the Logan Act.
Now, what if I told you, that in the Act's over two centuries of existence, only 2 people were indicted under it (in 1802 and 1852)? And neither of them convicted? You may as well bring up anti-sodomy laws, which Trump may well have violated too, in his wilder days...
Now, if we start using the Act, we ought to begin not with Trump, who's communications with any foreign government was entirely ordinary, and protected by the First Amendment, but with folks like Hanoi Jane (who went to Vietnam while the US was in actual war with the country), or Jesse Jackson (for his, ahem, intercourse with Fidel Castro)?
Are you sure, you want to throw those folks into the furnace of your hatred of Trump?
It surely is, but — like "resisting arrest" — it can't be the primary one. Which crime was it, that the "justice" trying to prosecute, when it was unduly obstructed?
Not clear at all, but let's not get distracted...
Again: "Collusion" is not a crime. Please, cite the actual criminal statue. Thank you!
When your only rebuttal is the opponent's sources, you are usually done for. Because none of them are lying, nor have any obvious conflict of interest. But, hey, how about the below citations, this time from unimpeachable sources?
FBI agents discussing "insurance" policy in case Trump wins Later in a text from August 15, 2016, Strzok tells Page: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . " FBI agents talking of "secret society" to sabotage Trump "... an exchange between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page in which one noted: “Are you even going to give out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the secret society.” Senior agent reworded"gross negligence" into "extreme carelessness" to help Clinton avoid prosecution “A draft statement former FBI Director James Comey prepared in anticipation of concluding the Hillary Clinton email case without criminal charges was heavily edited to change the ‘tone and substance’ of the remarks, a Republican senator said Thursday. Some of the edits proposed to the May 2016 draft, obtained by The Associated Press, appear to soften the gravity of the bureau’s findings. Comey, for instance, initially wrote that the FBI believed that Clinton and her aides were ‘grossly negligent’ in their handling of classified information, language also contained in the relevant criminal statute." Comey admitting to orchestrating a leak "James B. Comey’s testimony on Thursday that he orchestrated the disclosure of his account of his discussions with President Trump"Remember to logout.
Even at "absolute minimum", there will still be secrets.
Ah, yes — time for using (over)loaded terms in rhetoric...
Do drug-related prosecutions disproportionately require sealed warrants or FISA-approved surveillance? I don't think so.
Ah, so this, is what contributes to secrecy in courts?..
Yeah, because anonymity is the root of all evil.
Even if the time they last shortens because we implement all of your wise suggestions, the secrets would still be plentiful and the need to maintain them for some time (initially) remain. So we'll still need secret hearings in regular courts and/or courts dedicated to hearings on secret matters.
Fail.
The cited "Trump's own words" — about the government's apparatus being far too big to be productive and its headcount overblown — make perfect sense.
As usual, the Chicago public school teacher calling himself PopeRatzo fails to anchor his seething contempt for Republicans in general and Trump in particular to any semblance of reason.
I loved working from home, when I could, but occasional socializing in person is still a must. Neither e-mail, nor IM, nor audio can properly convey all the subtle details of smiling and other body-language. Smilies, emojis and memes are a crutch... Video is better, but it is still not as good as the real thing.
As a result, for example, your rejection of a genuinely bad idea can get easily misconstrued as meanness or vendetta against whoever proposed it. People slowly grow to resent each other — meeting in person, whether for work or just for a "happy hour", is crucial to maintain good relations.
The cleansing of the FBI, which you accuse Trump of performing/contemplating, would target people to for being disloyal to him, but those so loyal to Hillary Clinton, that they were willing to subvert the democratic process by any means necessary, including leaks and other abuses of their offices.
To allude, as you do, that this is simply Trump's vendetta against "true patriots", is exactly the bullshit you claim to be so adept at discerning.
Whenever I encounter anyone espousing such idea, I always ask them: "indicted for what?" For some reason, I'm yet to hear a coherent answer... Once people realize, there is no such crime as "collusion", they tend to shut up...
You are next — please, elaborate, which criminal statue(s) you suspect President Trump to have violated. Not asking for proof — just state the actual accusation, please — the crime(s) he's committed. I'll wait...
Republicans are alleging that FISA was abused.
... by the corruption among top FBI officials — an important omission in your comment.
Not to defend FISA, but corruption of law-enforcement officers is a problem civilization faced for as long as law-enforcement existed. By itself, what happened may be an argument for improving the checks-and-balances mechanisms of FISA, but not for its outright abolition.
A dubious statement... Are you saying, a free society can not have secrets? Ever heard of sealed warrants? Or of hearings — in regular courts — on matters so sensitive, a judge may order reporters out?..
Why, then, did seek to pay him? Quoting from an unimpeachable source: