Kamrade, you are absolutely right! Revolution is the only solution to this problem. Workers will continue to be exploited as long as there are KKKapitalists alive.
Maybe it is, but it may also be a suitable alternative to ads for some people... For example, my main objection to them is not that use up my computer's resources (indeed, AdBlock often takes more) — it is the screen real-estate, that the ads occupy. (And the incessant blinking of some of them.)
So, in exchange for accessing the content, I may be willing to let my computer do some coin-mining for the authors.
Products that are sold across state lines are subject to regulations of the state they are sold in.
Yes, this is true about both cars (human or computer-driven alike) and insurance policies.
Most of the insurance industry would likely move to the state that offers the most lenient regulations
Yes, this is also true about car-makers.
My question remains, if my state is disallowed to impose "regulatory road blocks" on sellers of self-driving cars, why is it allowed to impose such blocks on sellers of insurance?
... and bar states from imposing regulatory road blocks.
Can we have a similar ban to protect health-insurance providers from regulatory road blocks?
Unlike the transportation industry in general and the private cars in particular, health insurance is, actually, a disaster in need of addressing.
What argument is there to justify prohibiting me from purchasing health insurance from another state, that would not also justify my state imposing additional requirements to self-driving cars?
When I pointed out that you were incorrect about it having that legal authority (i.e. de jure control), you switched to arguing that the USG has de facto control of the Internet
You are hairsplitting. Had this been about the speech of anybody else — including Communists — you would've been as outraged as I am...
Nominally, there is no government on the Internet — indeed, ICANN is a private entity. Are you really comfortable with domain-registrars being in a position to decide, who gets to speak?
We're talking about a private company cancelling the service of a customer who broke rules that the customer agreed to.
There is no possible doubt, that Google's action was based purely and solely on the content of the customer's speech. Not on anything the customer did — only on something they said.
Irrelevant question.
It is highly relevant! You attempted to justify Google action by DailyStormer's (being accused of) inciting violence. By that logic, anybody and everybody else (accused of) inciting violence may lose their domain — including the dear "Antifa" — and I'd like you to confirm or deny this stance... Quite dodging, reply either "yes, any domain registrar opposing incitement of violence ought to cancel domain-registration of any organization affiliated with Antifa" or "no, some incitements of violence are more equal than others".
private service provider terminating the service of a customer who broke the terms of service
No, they did not. Google suddenly and with no change in the customer's behavior decided, that the customer is in violation — had you really been as adamant about free speech as you claim to be, you would've been outraged about Google playing the lawmaker, the prosecution, and the judge all at once and applying their own "laws" so capriciously.
No, notary publics [wikipedia.org] aren't private, actually.
Yes, they are — they are private in the sense they are offering their services on the free market, free to refuse any customer and/or charge whatever they please. But, once they certify a signature, they can not revoke the certification simply because they don't like the customer.
They're public officers appointed by the government.
Then so — de facto — are the registrars. Their function is purely to register a domain-name.
so your comparisons to Google's situation fall apart right from the get-go.
The subject of the thread still lists hosters (of services) in addition to registrars. Moreover, registrars — such as Google — have an even greater responsibility. Whereas a hosting provider may choose to discontinue service to a particularly unpleasant customer, a registrar should not have such ability — certainly not without first seeing the customer's domain safely migrated elsewhere.
Speaking of IANA, it, rather than the US government, is the organization with the authority you're talking about. The USG gave it away in 1998 to ICANN
Bullshit. Whatever it is ostensibly, the governance of the Internet is still very much controlled by the US government with ICANN allowed to do its thing only as long the US is Ok with it. Many of the root DNS-servers are US-owned...
As I said earlier, the domain-registrars are very government-like in their very purpose, like Registries of Deeds, for example...
The courts have repeatedly ruled that inciting violence—which is what The Daily Stormer is accused of—is an unlawful form of speech
You aren't offering any citations — how is mere accusation of inciting violence sufficient for government to suppress speech?..
But, meanwhile, do I understand you correctly, that you'll have no problem with any and all "Antifa" sites losing their domains? They aren't merely "accused" of inciting violence, not even merely observed engaging in it, they openly admit it.
don't you dare suggest that private entities are obligated to assist them
Just as Daily Stormer agreed to Google's terms, Google have agreed to — and did for a while — host them regardless of their views, voluntarily. They did not have to take them, but they did.
Notary Publics are private too, and they aren't obligated to serve anyone in particular. But, once they notarize your signature, they can't — should not be able to — withdraw their certification on the basis of you being an asshole...
The sudden pull of the domain-registration is a scandal and a violation of the Nazis' civil rights.
Then certainly Google ought to be fined for cancelling domain-registration of some Nazis.
No, the Nazis' ability to speak is not as important as disabled's ability to reach emergency services. But if a company can be fined a whopping $3 million for an unintended screw-up, Google ought to be comparably punished for a deliberate action against the customers' civil rights.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Google are a private business — yet, their very ability to offer domain-registration and similar services stems from government's authority over the Internet. And Congress shall make no laws allowing anyone to shut up unwanted speech like they did.
These may all be arguments for abolishing the Second Amendment. But, so long as it remains the law of the land, it must be obeyed and all the laws limiting weapon-owning and carrying are just that: unconstitutional. And I'm not talking about just guns either — in NJ, for example, it is illegal to possess even a slingshot!
And, no, "licensing" requirements are not constitutional either: because it is not a right, if exercising it requires a government's permission.
curb the enshrined right of freedom of speech of NFL players protesting.
This is bullshit. There is no such right. The 1st Amendment protects them from government prosecution — one can not be jailed for making a statement. It does not protect them — nor anyone else — from the disgust of their fellow citizens. Private employers may fire assholes — indeed, just the other day y'all were celebrating firings of the folks (accused of) taking parts in KKK marches...
Your entire argument demolished, all you have left is arguing over spelling? Seriously? Not even semantics?
Something tells me, you were among those, who believed the ancient shamans in Tasmania, who explained the sea-rise by the sins of their flock. Lit too many fires you did, fools, and the snows melted! Let's kill these criminals, or else we all drown!
You can always get fired for not doing your job or overstepping your boundaries.
Sure, sure. But that's not what the write-up says, emphasis mine:
Open internet advocates and Democratic lawmakers are mounting a last-ditch effort to remove Federal Communications Commission chief Ajit Pai over his anti-net neutrality stance.
Both is the case with Pai.
Is it? We all know and understand perfectly well, that it is exactly his opinion on net-neutrality, that's causing all this inordinate amount of hate against him. If establishing the "net neutrality" in 2014 was within FCC's boundaries, abolishing it in 2017 is too.
Your attempts to rationalize it failed. Why don't you join your simpler minded-brethren in calling me names instead?
So, you downmod my perfectly on-topic and sensible — even if contrarian — post as "Troll" and then attack me with childish insults anonymously?.. Maybe you really should concentrate on fulfilling your zoophilic fantasy and post less on/....
You need to understand the difference between anthropogenic climate change and natural climate change.
Well, presumably, you understand it. Could you inform me, then, how big of a rise in average temperature world-wide has, actually, taken place in the last 30 years and how much did the anthropogenic and natural components each contributed to it? I will, of course, expect citations.
But hey, as long as you keep telling yourself its not happening, we're all good, right?
And as long as you keep telling yourself it is happening, it is all bad, right?
The totality was limited not only by our rights or privacy-expectations, but by the capabilities of the law-enforcement. It was always perfectly legal for the government to place a police officer on every corner — there just weren't enough officers and their ability to share and archive their observations was limited.
But technology has solved those limitations technological limitations... If we do not want it used, we need new laws to the effect.
President Donald Trump will issue a new directive Monday to supercharge the U.S. government's support for science, tech, engineering and mathematics, including coding education
Whether it is lead by Trump or Obama, government should not — indeed, must not — involve itself in the markets, including the higher education market. Not the government of a free country, anyway...
The Central Planning, that Statists like so much, is both inefficient and opressive.
why should some narrow-minded parents restrict what is taught to my child, in school?
Because you and those like you support the government's monopoly on children education. And now the same monopoly is creeping into higher education too:
"Title IX" lets Federal government control, what can and can not be said by the students.
The recently-introduced monopoly on college-loans allows the government to decide, at any moment, where the would-be students can (and can not) take spend tuition loans.
Profit: thought the 1st Amendment is still, ostensibly, the law of the land, the government can already control, what the students — and their professors — are allowed to say. And teach... And read
It happened to public schools years ago, it is happening to colleges right now.
No, it is not. Nobody was arrested or even talked to.
Stingrays track every single last innocent and unsuspected citizen
How is this different from police following every single and unsuspected citizen in an area? Or, indeed, video-recording everything with security-cameras?
Slashdot Mirror
The comparison was first involved to convict a man advocating against America's involvement in the First World War. His agitation against it was deemed analogous to yelling fire in the crowded theater.
Obviously, that precedent was undone in the 60-70ies, when being against a war became all the rage.
Speech is speech. Deal with it.
Kamrade, you are absolutely right! Revolution is the only solution to this problem. Workers will continue to be exploited as long as there are KKKapitalists alive.
Maybe it is, but it may also be a suitable alternative to ads for some people... For example, my main objection to them is not that use up my computer's resources (indeed, AdBlock often takes more ) — it is the screen real-estate, that the ads occupy. (And the incessant blinking of some of them.)
So, in exchange for accessing the content, I may be willing to let my computer do some coin-mining for the authors.
Yes, this is true about both cars (human or computer-driven alike) and insurance policies.
Yes, this is also true about car-makers.
My question remains, if my state is disallowed to impose "regulatory road blocks" on sellers of self-driving cars, why is it allowed to impose such blocks on sellers of insurance?
Can we have a similar ban to protect health-insurance providers from regulatory road blocks?
Unlike the transportation industry in general and the private cars in particular, health insurance is, actually, a disaster in need of addressing.
What argument is there to justify prohibiting me from purchasing health insurance from another state, that would not also justify my state imposing additional requirements to self-driving cars?
Let's hear from the crowd, who like to pay taxes — because that's how they buy civilization .
They seem kind of quiet today for some reason...
You are hairsplitting. Had this been about the speech of anybody else — including Communists — you would've been as outraged as I am...
Nominally, there is no government on the Internet — indeed, ICANN is a private entity. Are you really comfortable with domain-registrars being in a position to decide, who gets to speak?
There is no possible doubt, that Google's action was based purely and solely on the content of the customer's speech. Not on anything the customer did — only on something they said.
It is highly relevant! You attempted to justify Google action by DailyStormer's (being accused of) inciting violence. By that logic, anybody and everybody else (accused of) inciting violence may lose their domain — including the dear "Antifa" — and I'd like you to confirm or deny this stance... Quite dodging, reply either "yes, any domain registrar opposing incitement of violence ought to cancel domain-registration of any organization affiliated with Antifa" or "no, some incitements of violence are more equal than others".
No, they did not. Google suddenly and with no change in the customer's behavior decided, that the customer is in violation — had you really been as adamant about free speech as you claim to be, you would've been outraged about Google playing the lawmaker, the prosecution, and the judge all at once and applying their own "laws" so capriciously.
Yes, they are — they are private in the sense they are offering their services on the free market, free to refuse any customer and/or charge whatever they please. But, once they certify a signature, they can not revoke the certification simply because they don't like the customer.
Then so — de facto — are the registrars. Their function is purely to register a domain-name.
The subject of the thread still lists hosters (of services) in addition to registrars. Moreover, registrars — such as Google — have an even greater responsibility. Whereas a hosting provider may choose to discontinue service to a particularly unpleasant customer, a registrar should not have such ability — certainly not without first seeing the customer's domain safely migrated elsewhere.
Bullshit. Whatever it is ostensibly, the governance of the Internet is still very much controlled by the US government with ICANN allowed to do its thing only as long the US is Ok with it. Many of the root DNS-servers are US-owned...
As I said earlier, the domain-registrars are very government-like in their very purpose, like Registries of Deeds, for example...
You aren't offering any citations — how is mere accusation of inciting violence sufficient for government to suppress speech?..
But, meanwhile, do I understand you correctly, that you'll have no problem with any and all "Antifa" sites losing their domains? They aren't merely "accused" of inciting violence, not even merely observed engaging in it, they openly admit it.
Just as Daily Stormer agreed to Google's terms, Google have agreed to — and did for a while — host them regardless of their views, voluntarily. They did not have to take them, but they did.
Notary Publics are private too, and they aren't obligated to serve anyone in particular. But, once they notarize your signature, they can't — should not be able to — withdraw their certification on the basis of you being an asshole...
The sudden pull of the domain-registration is a scandal and a violation of the Nazis' civil rights.
Then certainly Google ought to be fined for cancelling domain-registration of some Nazis.
No, the Nazis' ability to speak is not as important as disabled's ability to reach emergency services. But if a company can be fined a whopping $3 million for an unintended screw-up, Google ought to be comparably punished for a deliberate action against the customers' civil rights.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Google are a private business — yet, their very ability to offer domain-registration and similar services stems from government's authority over the Internet. And Congress shall make no laws allowing anyone to shut up unwanted speech like they did.
Ha! Is that your standard for winning arguments? Not much, not much...
The President does not lose his First Amendment rights, when he becomes President.
Nope. As long as he is not doing anything about it in his official capacity, it is not.
These may all be arguments for abolishing the Second Amendment. But, so long as it remains the law of the land, it must be obeyed and all the laws limiting weapon-owning and carrying are just that: unconstitutional. And I'm not talking about just guns either — in NJ, for example, it is illegal to possess even a slingshot!
And, no, "licensing" requirements are not constitutional either: because it is not a right, if exercising it requires a government's permission.
This is bullshit. There is no such right. The 1st Amendment protects them from government prosecution — one can not be jailed for making a statement. It does not protect them — nor anyone else — from the disgust of their fellow citizens. Private employers may fire assholes — indeed, just the other day y'all were celebrating firings of the folks (accused of) taking parts in KKK marches...
Consistency much?
Your entire argument demolished, all you have left is arguing over spelling? Seriously? Not even semantics?
Something tells me, you were among those, who believed the ancient shamans in Tasmania, who explained the sea-rise by the sins of their flock. Lit too many fires you did, fools, and the snows melted! Let's kill these criminals, or else we all drown!
You can always get fired for not doing your job or overstepping your boundaries.
Sure, sure. But that's not what the write-up says, emphasis mine:
Both is the case with Pai.
Is it? We all know and understand perfectly well, that it is exactly his opinion on net-neutrality, that's causing all this inordinate amount of hate against him. If establishing the "net neutrality" in 2014 was within FCC's boundaries, abolishing it in 2017 is too.
Your attempts to rationalize it failed. Why don't you join your simpler minded-brethren in calling me names instead?
So, you downmod my perfectly on-topic and sensible — even if contrarian — post as "Troll" and then attack me with childish insults anonymously?.. Maybe you really should concentrate on fulfilling your zoophilic fantasy and post less on /....
Unlike football players or other private employees, government employees can not be fired for their political convictions. Because 1st Amendment...
The self-appointed "Internet Activists" can suck my tail...
Tasmania was a peninsula recently enough for Homo Sapiens to populate it. Check-mate, idiot.
Neither of your links answers the questions I posted:
Fail. As expected...
Well, presumably, you understand it. Could you inform me, then, how big of a rise in average temperature world-wide has, actually, taken place in the last 30 years and how much did the anthropogenic and natural components each contributed to it? I will, of course, expect citations.
And as long as you keep telling yourself it is happening, it is all bad, right?
The totality was limited not only by our rights or privacy-expectations, but by the capabilities of the law-enforcement. It was always perfectly legal for the government to place a police officer on every corner — there just weren't enough officers and their ability to share and archive their observations was limited.
But technology has solved those limitations technological limitations... If we do not want it used, we need new laws to the effect.
How could their climate have possibly changed without SUVs, air-conditioners, and cows with meteorism?
Whether it is lead by Trump or Obama, government should not — indeed, must not — involve itself in the markets, including the higher education market. Not the government of a free country, anyway...
The Central Planning, that Statists like so much, is both inefficient and opressive.
Because you and those like you support the government's monopoly on children education. And now the same monopoly is creeping into higher education too:
It happened to public schools years ago, it is happening to colleges right now.
No, it is not. Nobody was arrested or even talked to.
How is this different from police following every single and unsuspected citizen in an area? Or, indeed, video-recording everything with security-cameras?