The issue is not bunk. The problem with Twitter's statement is that everybody knows it's a lie: They strictly enforce rules against conservatives and laxly or do not enforce them against progressives. The fact that they singled out Donald Trump reminds people of this disparity.
So if states or Congress make political orientation a protected class, you'd be happy to see Twitter be prosecuted for their uneven enforcement of their policies?
If that's the case, that's playing with fire. If people are afraid of signing up because Twitter will apply biased enforcement even to the President of the United States of America, that hurts their bottom line. Some people won't sign up, others will go elsewhere for more controversial topics.
It falsely assumes that I'm "so anti-abortion", that gays don't have children, and more. Who will be picking up the tab for Social Security and Medicare for all those non-breeders?
No, Trump's followers (and a lot of others) complain that Twitter isn't honest about the rules they use. Also that a lot of Twitter's supporters are inconsistent in applying the values they claim to hold or as dishonest as Twitter.
Does a bakery, as a private company, have the right to say "No cakes that we don't like"?
Does a family-owned store, as a privately held corporation, have the right to say "We won't pay for medical services that we believe are morally equivalent to murder"?
Many Americans think the answer to those should be "yes" -- and if you say no to this, but yes to Twitter, then you should think very carefully about how much sense it makes to draw the line where you draw it.
Is it merely "silly" if the CEO who recently promised not to abuse his position gets special support from enforcers in a form that no ordinary user can get?
I don't use Reddit and could hardly care less about what happens to it, but this "it's easy to start with me" approach smacks of hypocrisy and a broken promise.
Big Oil blends the ethanol in, those fine corn farmers in Iowa are just meeting market demand. There's no political benefit in having it the other way around.
It's even better than that. Most taxpayers don't recognize when government is responsible for higher prices they pay due to increased regulations. Politicians can "support the environment" by supporting making food into car/truck fuel, then "support the little guy" by railing against the greedy gas companies who are diluting gasoline with less-efficient, water-hungry bio-ethanol.
"So far as [you] know" is wrong. States must provide a section on driver's license applications (among other application forms) for voter registration. The Motor Voter Act requires that section to list the requirements to register as a voter, allow the application to aver that they meet those requirements, and prohibits asking for anything beyond the "minimum amount of information necessary".
In my state (Virginia), you don't need a lease or deed to prove residency -- a recent utility bill, bank statement, paycheck stub, or school transcript can be used instead, along with harder-to-procure things like Social Security statements, voter registration card, property or life insurance bill, and so forth. As I said, that varies by state.
If you can prove your identity and residential address well enough to get a driver's license (the exact criteria vary by state), and you check the box on that paperwork certifying that you are a citizen and you wish to be registered to vote, you will be registered to vote.
The "Motor Voter Act" requires all states to do that, and to have a similar checkbox for many applications for public assistance (food stamps, Medicaid, housing, etc.).
The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require evidence of citizenship beyond the federal requirements of the applicant checking the box and signing the form.
Conservatives support absentee ballots because that's how active duty service members vote. The only question is why we make it easy for many other people, or even (as in Oregon) mandatory.
Why does Dem-controlled Oregon want to mandate voting by such an easily cheated system?
It's a problem with agile and its proponents, who claim that agile is this wonderful process, but you need an awesome team with good management to make it work. If you have an awesome team with good management, your process needs are usually only defined by the total size of the team.
Ironically, the Communist Manifesto also says it values the working class people over the elites. In both cases, the hypocritical hyperbole fails in practice.
Zed A. Shaw pithily translated what Agilistas really mean when they claim to value those things.
Not that I endorse the idea of just "doing programming" as an alternative to understanding the project's needs, the team's capabilities, and using a process that fits both.
Meanwhile, those of us who have more than a year of experience know that "waterfall" and "agile" are not the only process choices in the universe, we know how to plan for unknowns, and -- unlike agile -- we actually deliver reasonably finished products.
Trying to fit everything into single sprints is a recipe for code bugs and architectural rework. Making a toy version a higher priority than an appropriate amount of analysis and high-level design is a recipe for design errors and technical debt.
Slashdot Mirror
To clarify: The problem with Twitter's statement is that it is a lie, and that is compounded by everyone knowing it is a lie.
The issue is not bunk. The problem with Twitter's statement is that everybody knows it's a lie: They strictly enforce rules against conservatives and laxly or do not enforce them against progressives. The fact that they singled out Donald Trump reminds people of this disparity.
Twitter's online service is categorically not like anyone's home, so what I call that hypothetical situation is irrelevant.
What's it like, being so bigoted and yet apparently unable to see it?
So if states or Congress make political orientation a protected class, you'd be happy to see Twitter be prosecuted for their uneven enforcement of their policies?
Judging from people's behavior, being an asshole usually is a congenital and terminal condition.
If that's the case, that's playing with fire. If people are afraid of signing up because Twitter will apply biased enforcement even to the President of the United States of America, that hurts their bottom line. Some people won't sign up, others will go elsewhere for more controversial topics.
You're kind of right. The bakery that says "no cakes for same-sex weddings" is honest about their rules. Twitter isn't.
Did you mean to give an example of ipse dixit, or was that your mask slipping?
It falsely assumes that I'm "so anti-abortion", that gays don't have children, and more. Who will be picking up the tab for Social Security and Medicare for all those non-breeders?
I don't. Nobody with an ounce of self respect should.
You comment was so stupid it gave the nearest children cancer. Stop being so moronic in your trolling.
No, Trump's followers (and a lot of others) complain that Twitter isn't honest about the rules they use. Also that a lot of Twitter's supporters are inconsistent in applying the values they claim to hold or as dishonest as Twitter.
Does a bakery, as a private company, have the right to say "No cakes that we don't like"?
Does a family-owned store, as a privately held corporation, have the right to say "We won't pay for medical services that we believe are morally equivalent to murder"?
Many Americans think the answer to those should be "yes" -- and if you say no to this, but yes to Twitter, then you should think very carefully about how much sense it makes to draw the line where you draw it.
Twitter is banning people who break their rules of *speech* on their forum. That's why they are, in essence, banning speech. Admit it already!
And their rules are simple: "No speech that we dislike."
Is it merely "silly" if the CEO who recently promised not to abuse his position gets special support from enforcers in a form that no ordinary user can get?
I don't use Reddit and could hardly care less about what happens to it, but this "it's easy to start with me" approach smacks of hypocrisy and a broken promise.
Big Oil blends the ethanol in, those fine corn farmers in Iowa are just meeting market demand. There's no political benefit in having it the other way around.
It's even better than that. Most taxpayers don't recognize when government is responsible for higher prices they pay due to increased regulations. Politicians can "support the environment" by supporting making food into car/truck fuel, then "support the little guy" by railing against the greedy gas companies who are diluting gasoline with less-efficient, water-hungry bio-ethanol.
"So far as [you] know" is wrong. States must provide a section on driver's license applications (among other application forms) for voter registration. The Motor Voter Act requires that section to list the requirements to register as a voter, allow the application to aver that they meet those requirements, and prohibits asking for anything beyond the "minimum amount of information necessary".
In my state (Virginia), you don't need a lease or deed to prove residency -- a recent utility bill, bank statement, paycheck stub, or school transcript can be used instead, along with harder-to-procure things like Social Security statements, voter registration card, property or life insurance bill, and so forth. As I said, that varies by state.
If you can prove your identity and residential address well enough to get a driver's license (the exact criteria vary by state), and you check the box on that paperwork certifying that you are a citizen and you wish to be registered to vote, you will be registered to vote.
The "Motor Voter Act" requires all states to do that, and to have a similar checkbox for many applications for public assistance (food stamps, Medicaid, housing, etc.).
The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require evidence of citizenship beyond the federal requirements of the applicant checking the box and signing the form.
Conservatives support absentee ballots because that's how active duty service members vote. The only question is why we make it easy for many other people, or even (as in Oregon) mandatory.
Why does Dem-controlled Oregon want to mandate voting by such an easily cheated system?
It's a problem with agile and its proponents, who claim that agile is this wonderful process, but you need an awesome team with good management to make it work. If you have an awesome team with good management, your process needs are usually only defined by the total size of the team.
Ironically, the Communist Manifesto also says it values the working class people over the elites. In both cases, the hypocritical hyperbole fails in practice.
Zed A. Shaw pithily translated what Agilistas really mean when they claim to value those things.
Not that I endorse the idea of just "doing programming" as an alternative to understanding the project's needs, the team's capabilities, and using a process that fits both.
Meanwhile, those of us who have more than a year of experience know that "waterfall" and "agile" are not the only process choices in the universe, we know how to plan for unknowns, and -- unlike agile -- we actually deliver reasonably finished products.
Trying to fit everything into single sprints is a recipe for code bugs and architectural rework. Making a toy version a higher priority than an appropriate amount of analysis and high-level design is a recipe for design errors and technical debt.