That's why we imprison people who fuck 16 year olds.
And we should. We should also severely punish legal guardians who let their children engage in dangerous and/or illegal activities, like signing up for prostitution web sites and meeting clients (as in this case), or commit felonies (in other cases).
The legal guardian is, and should be, responsible for the actions of the child.
A "corporation" is a government-created entity. It cannot be created arbitrarily by private individuals.
If you want to define "corporation" that narrowly, be my guest. I still agree with you that "we should just get rid of the government-created idea of a corporation".
Private businesses can operate under private contracts and reproduce all the desirable aspects of what you call a "corporation" through such contracts. As a bonus, the ability of government to regulate such webs of private contracts is greatly diminished.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter currently enjoy legal protections against copyright infringement, defamation of character, and other kinds of legal issues because they claim that they are just redistribution information with no editorial control. Obviously, that is a sham.
The solution is simple: remove legal protection from these companies and hold them responsible for anything that appears on their web sites.
No breakup needed, the problem will take care of itself with a few lawsuits.
If it's so important to insert "in my opinion" into the accusation of bigotry, why did you not do that in your own?
I did: I think you are reprehensible authoritarians and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your beliefs.
BTW, American IP and technology lawyer here.
That certainly explains your political positions, your affinity for European authoritarians, and your ignorance about Europe. (Though I get the impression that your law school short changed you on rhetoric and logic.)
I don't even have to support FOSTA-SESTA to see that the Republicans (not "people like me") are going to criminalize speech in ways that you haven't even begun to properly fear.
As far as I can tell, that's a bipartisan effort, and also has been largely driven by feminist anti-sex hysteria and lawyers (people like you) looking to criminalize more and more of American life.
Fortunately, the plurality of Americans, including myself, are independents, and the majority of Americans despise Washington and lawyers. So I have hope. But if the US spirals down the same drain as Europe, I can always emigrate again.
As if there was no pre-existing dispute with the EU concerning Facebook's compliance with consumer protection laws. Oh wait, there is [phys.org]!
Yes, and it is inappropriate for an EU official who is in charge of implementing those laws to talk about implementing them as part of a private spat with the company.
Now please connect the consumer protection laws
Jourova wants to criminalize speech she doesn't like; that's why many people despise her and abuse her online. And then she implied a threat against the company on whose platform she was verbally abused under consumer protection laws. The link seems pretty obvious.
BTW, [my opinion is that] you're a bigot for claiming that I should be ostracized, so welcome to the club that you placed me in.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But hopefully we'll succeed at stopping people like you in implementing your policies in the US through the political process.
She wants to regulate a business that is causing massive societal damage. Corporations are an artificial entity created by the state, and as such, they need to be regulated by the state.
You couldn't have stated the economic beliefs of fascism more clearly.
Stating that a company must follow consumer protection laws is threatening just as stating that I cannot stab people who merely annoy me is threatening.
And expressing concern about a business is just being friendly, right? "Nice restaurant you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it!"
Paradox of tolerance. No sympathy for those who advocate for or commit hate crimes, and little tolerance for right wing extremism. If you want to avoid censure, don't suck.
The question is whether government should criminalize speech that is not accompanied by a crime. The EU and you obviously think government should. I think you are reprehensible authoritarians and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your beliefs. But there is no "paradox": despite the offensiveness of your beliefs, I'm not calling for them to be criminalized.
She represents the constituents who put her in office
She has no "constituents". She is unelected.
That you disagree with her does not make her wrong or an "authoritarian". By your convention, all people in positions of authority are authoritarians,
No, what makes her an authoritarian is that she wants to interfere with free speech and freedom of association. The fact that she does this from a position of authority makes it worse, but she will continue to be an authoritarian after she retires and loses her power.
You can disagree or complain about her policies, but try to present your statements in a civilized adult manner. If you start off as a screaming lunatic of course she isn't going to listen to you.
You obviously can send her angry messages as well. And she did listen: she closed her Facebook account, commented publicly, and then proceeded to use her office to threaten Facebook. I don't know whether that's the effect people wanted, but it certainly is an effect.
Two more observations.
First, Jourova throws around accusations of hate crimes and right wing extremism freely; she may be more sophisticated than the people who send her nasty messages, but she herself is an intolerant bigot as well.
Second, the new normal is that if you are a celebrity (political, social, cultural, sports), you will receive abusive messages and you will have to face the fact that many people will dislike you and won't be quiet about it. That puts a natural lid on the cult of personality and celebrity that grew up during the 20th century and is probably a good thing.
"This is my nature, I speak to everybody who wants normal, honest, descent communication.
I don't think people who send her nasty messages want to "speak" with her or debate her, they want to express their outrage at her policies. After all, she has all the power.
At the same news conference, Jourova warned Facebook that it faces the prospect of sanctions from European member states if the company does not comply with consumer protection rules.
And right on cue, she threatens to use that power to hurt people and companies she doesn't like, in the guise of "consumer protection rules".
If you've paid any attention to the religious involvement in the anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights movements in the U.S, then you know "government keeping their nose out of things" is categorically NOT what they're after.
Historical positions on homosexuality have been all over the map. Socialists and progressives have traditionally been virulently anti-gay, while many churches have been quite tolerant. And abortion was historically promoted in the US as a racist part of the eugenics movement, mostly by Democrats and progressives. Even Hillary was opposed to gay marriage throughout most of her life and only changed her position when it was politically safe.
These days, churches mainly object to being forced to pay for other people's abortions and for having to accommodate gays and lesbians. Personally, I have no problem with either position. In fact, I think it's reasonable to restrict abortions to the first trimester and require counseling and a waiting period, and I think it's fine to allow anybody who wants to discriminate against me based on my sexual orientation.
No, but the do *select* the representatives (a bit of Primary theater notwithstanding), and are controlled by oligarchs.
Referring to American businessmen as "oligarchs" is absurd. You really have no idea how good Americans have it and how responsive the US is to the will of the people compared to other democracies.
I believe it was, when a group of wealthy businessman proposed an alliance with several prominent church leaders to help advance each others agendas as both were rapidly losing political ground.
They didn't need to "propose an alliance"; protestants naturally believe that success in a free market and service to one's fellow man go hand in hand.
and the churchs' distaste for science education, abortions, gay rights
I understand why you believe that the church is some kind of backwards, irrational hicks that want to prevent people from enjoying these rights; I used to think the same thing. Unfortunately, progressive history on these issues is utterly deplorable. I've come around largely to the moderate Christian and classically liberal view on these issues, namely that government should keep its nose out of such issues entirely.
I'm not talking about Sanders himself so much as the grass-roots movement around him that's displacing some of the bought-and-paid-for career politicians with upstarts that (might) be less so.
You know who else kept fighting the "oligarchs" and the "bought-and-paid-for career politicians"? That's right! Brownshirts and the Komsomol.
You're suggesting that "powerful people should be held accountable" and you're suggesting that this be done outside the law. When stripped of all the niceties, that means a lynch mob.
Of course, if by "holding oligarchs accountable", you merely mean "I refuse to work for Google/Apple/Facebook and I refuse to buy a Tesla", then we agree.
As for changing the laws - how would you suggest doing that? Here in the U.S. the first-past-the-post electoral system makes it virtually impossible for 3rd party candidates to be viable, and both primary parties are pretty firmly under the control of the oligarchs making the laws.
Here in the US, parties don't control representatives. There have been plenty of decent, limited government people in both parties. The reason they don't get elected is not because of "oligarchs" but because of voters.
And the Democratic fiasco has led to an apparently strong and growing democratic faction within that party, so there's some hope the commoners may manage to consolidate some power through that.
If by "commoners manage to consolidate some power through that" you mean people voting for candidates like Sanders, you're part of the problem. The leftists in the Democratic party may or may not have good intentions, but "consolidating power" in their hands makes the problem worse.
Unfortunately I don't see that happening in the Republican party unless there is a schism in the alliance between the oligarchs and church officials - and that seems very unlikely.
Unlike Europe, churches in the US are almost entirely private institutions. And I don't see how you think that "the oligarchs" are in bed with "the churches". I suggest you overcome the militant atheism you have been spoon-fed by the Democrats and progressives and start recognizing Christian Americans for what they are: overwhelmingly decent people who possibly disagree with you on some social issues.
My own experience as a gay, atheist immigrant in the US has been that Christians have been far more tolerant, rational, and willing to have a civil dialog that the majority of people in the progressive movement, and that includes fundamentalist Christians who disapprove of gay marriage and my "lifestyle".
as warned an unspecified number of senators and aides that their personal email accounts were "targeted by foreign government hackers... But the senator said the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, which oversees Senate security, informed legislators and staffers that it has no authority to help secure personal, rather than official, accounts. "This must change," Wyden wrote in the letter.
Yes, it must change: stop using personal E-mail for official business. See, that was simple.
They say different things. "You suck" says "I don't like your code and I believe dealing with you is more hassle than it's worth", a perfectly reasonable decision to make for a project leader.
Being anti-social and lacking empathy doesn't make you a better coder
Men tend to resolve differences and disagreements quickly and effectively through conflict and aggression. This is apparently baffling to many women, as well as to men who didn't grow up with it. But it's effective, and in many situations works better than typically female interaction styles.
I work in medicine, and while many fail at empathy, at least there is a focus on it.
I don't want empathy from medical professionals, I want professionalism and efficiency. When I want empathy, I go see a priest or counselor.
Linus didn't "build up this cult of personality, this cult of importance", he actually built one of the most important pieces of software on the planet. People respect and accept his behavior because he delivers. Nobody ever forced anybody to work with Linus.
If you don't like someone, don't work with them. If you don't like a company, don't buy their products. If you don't like who an open source project is run, fork the project and do better. Stop intruding into other people's business.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as they don't exercise editorial control, they'd enjoy the same protections as they do now.
The problem with Google etc. is that they exercise editorial control yet still demand protection from lawsuits.
And we should. We should also severely punish legal guardians who let their children engage in dangerous and/or illegal activities, like signing up for prostitution web sites and meeting clients (as in this case), or commit felonies (in other cases).
The legal guardian is, and should be, responsible for the actions of the child.
If you want to define "corporation" that narrowly, be my guest. I still agree with you that "we should just get rid of the government-created idea of a corporation".
Private businesses can operate under private contracts and reproduce all the desirable aspects of what you call a "corporation" through such contracts. As a bonus, the ability of government to regulate such webs of private contracts is greatly diminished.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter currently enjoy legal protections against copyright infringement, defamation of character, and other kinds of legal issues because they claim that they are just redistribution information with no editorial control. Obviously, that is a sham.
The solution is simple: remove legal protection from these companies and hold them responsible for anything that appears on their web sites.
No breakup needed, the problem will take care of itself with a few lawsuits.
I did: I think you are reprehensible authoritarians and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your beliefs.
That certainly explains your political positions, your affinity for European authoritarians, and your ignorance about Europe. (Though I get the impression that your law school short changed you on rhetoric and logic.)
As far as I can tell, that's a bipartisan effort, and also has been largely driven by feminist anti-sex hysteria and lawyers (people like you) looking to criminalize more and more of American life.
Fortunately, the plurality of Americans, including myself, are independents, and the majority of Americans despise Washington and lawyers. So I have hope. But if the US spirals down the same drain as Europe, I can always emigrate again.
I think that would be great. Corporations are much better created and run by voluntary private agreements.
Oh, I understand fascism quite well given that my family suffered greatly under it.
Yes, and it is inappropriate for an EU official who is in charge of implementing those laws to talk about implementing them as part of a private spat with the company.
Jourova wants to criminalize speech she doesn't like; that's why many people despise her and abuse her online. And then she implied a threat against the company on whose platform she was verbally abused under consumer protection laws. The link seems pretty obvious.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But hopefully we'll succeed at stopping people like you in implementing your policies in the US through the political process.
You couldn't have stated the economic beliefs of fascism more clearly.
And expressing concern about a business is just being friendly, right? "Nice restaurant you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it!"
The question is whether government should criminalize speech that is not accompanied by a crime. The EU and you obviously think government should. I think you are reprehensible authoritarians and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your beliefs. But there is no "paradox": despite the offensiveness of your beliefs, I'm not calling for them to be criminalized.
She has no "constituents". She is unelected.
No, what makes her an authoritarian is that she wants to interfere with free speech and freedom of association. The fact that she does this from a position of authority makes it worse, but she will continue to be an authoritarian after she retires and loses her power.
She is an EU commissioner; that gives her a lot of power. Her decisions could cost Facebook billions, or shield Facebook from massive liabilities.
I didn't defend the conduct, I explained it.
You obviously can send her angry messages as well. And she did listen: she closed her Facebook account, commented publicly, and then proceeded to use her office to threaten Facebook. I don't know whether that's the effect people wanted, but it certainly is an effect.
Two more observations.
First, Jourova throws around accusations of hate crimes and right wing extremism freely; she may be more sophisticated than the people who send her nasty messages, but she herself is an intolerant bigot as well.
Second, the new normal is that if you are a celebrity (political, social, cultural, sports), you will receive abusive messages and you will have to face the fact that many people will dislike you and won't be quiet about it. That puts a natural lid on the cult of personality and celebrity that grew up during the 20th century and is probably a good thing.
I don't think people who send her nasty messages want to "speak" with her or debate her, they want to express their outrage at her policies. After all, she has all the power.
And right on cue, she threatens to use that power to hurt people and companies she doesn't like, in the guise of "consumer protection rules".
Historical positions on homosexuality have been all over the map. Socialists and progressives have traditionally been virulently anti-gay, while many churches have been quite tolerant. And abortion was historically promoted in the US as a racist part of the eugenics movement, mostly by Democrats and progressives. Even Hillary was opposed to gay marriage throughout most of her life and only changed her position when it was politically safe.
These days, churches mainly object to being forced to pay for other people's abortions and for having to accommodate gays and lesbians. Personally, I have no problem with either position. In fact, I think it's reasonable to restrict abortions to the first trimester and require counseling and a waiting period, and I think it's fine to allow anybody who wants to discriminate against me based on my sexual orientation.
They clearly need to try LSD next.
Referring to American businessmen as "oligarchs" is absurd. You really have no idea how good Americans have it and how responsive the US is to the will of the people compared to other democracies.
They didn't need to "propose an alliance"; protestants naturally believe that success in a free market and service to one's fellow man go hand in hand.
I understand why you believe that the church is some kind of backwards, irrational hicks that want to prevent people from enjoying these rights; I used to think the same thing. Unfortunately, progressive history on these issues is utterly deplorable. I've come around largely to the moderate Christian and classically liberal view on these issues, namely that government should keep its nose out of such issues entirely.
You know who else kept fighting the "oligarchs" and the "bought-and-paid-for career politicians"? That's right! Brownshirts and the Komsomol.
You're suggesting that "powerful people should be held accountable" and you're suggesting that this be done outside the law. When stripped of all the niceties, that means a lynch mob.
Of course, if by "holding oligarchs accountable", you merely mean "I refuse to work for Google/Apple/Facebook and I refuse to buy a Tesla", then we agree.
Here in the US, parties don't control representatives. There have been plenty of decent, limited government people in both parties. The reason they don't get elected is not because of "oligarchs" but because of voters.
If by "commoners manage to consolidate some power through that" you mean people voting for candidates like Sanders, you're part of the problem. The leftists in the Democratic party may or may not have good intentions, but "consolidating power" in their hands makes the problem worse.
Unlike Europe, churches in the US are almost entirely private institutions. And I don't see how you think that "the oligarchs" are in bed with "the churches". I suggest you overcome the militant atheism you have been spoon-fed by the Democrats and progressives and start recognizing Christian Americans for what they are: overwhelmingly decent people who possibly disagree with you on some social issues.
My own experience as a gay, atheist immigrant in the US has been that Christians have been far more tolerant, rational, and willing to have a civil dialog that the majority of people in the progressive movement, and that includes fundamentalist Christians who disapprove of gay marriage and my "lifestyle".
Yes, it must change: stop using personal E-mail for official business. See, that was simple.
They say different things. "You suck" says "I don't like your code and I believe dealing with you is more hassle than it's worth", a perfectly reasonable decision to make for a project leader.
Men tend to resolve differences and disagreements quickly and effectively through conflict and aggression. This is apparently baffling to many women, as well as to men who didn't grow up with it. But it's effective, and in many situations works better than typically female interaction styles.
I don't want empathy from medical professionals, I want professionalism and efficiency. When I want empathy, I go see a priest or counselor.
Linus didn't "build up this cult of personality, this cult of importance", he actually built one of the most important pieces of software on the planet. People respect and accept his behavior because he delivers. Nobody ever forced anybody to work with Linus.
If you don't like someone, don't work with them. If you don't like a company, don't buy their products. If you don't like who an open source project is run, fork the project and do better. Stop intruding into other people's business.
It's a choice I exercise frequently.
I wasn't talking about the company's obligation to you, I was talking about your obligation to the company.
For some people. For most people, they are worse.
If you think that the laws are corrupt, work towards changing the laws. You apparently want to start a lynch mob, and that doesn't result in justice.
That's not inconsistent with anything I said.
What I said is that there it is illegitimate to hold people "accountable" for exercising their power within the bounds of the law.
What you're saying is that powerful people who violate the law are often not held accountable.
That has never been "the main point of C/C++".
The main point of C is "let programmers get their work done, and give them access to low-level features when they need to".
The main point of C++ is OOP with C-like features.