You are not entitled to interaction, including a business interaction, with anyone else any more than an arbitrary person is entitled to having sex with you. Laws to the contrary do exist; we do live with them and also call them bullshit which they are.
Oh, and this law will also serve as a convenient pretext for concealing the identity, attributes, and/or specific words or actions of a perpetrator if revealing them is deemed, say, "racist", as it happens today sometimes.
... for the attack. The actual (ostensible) motivations are described in the terrorist's manifesto which, in some countries, is now a crime to possess. While problematic, this law is less of a problem than a hypothetical law criminalizing hate speech would be.
Because when a large business entity asks to increase taxes "on itself" (mind the weasel words!), in reality it wants that tax to contribute to eliminating smaller competitors for who this tax increase will become a heavier relative burden.
Living in a country that is currently pretty oppressive in terms of speech (Russia) and observing the same tendencies all over the world, I'm starting to kind of like these developments. The larger the scale of censorship, the quicker people adopt the media and channel that simply cannot be censored, at least without a big collateral damage to national and international IT infrastructure.
What if the person they used in the segment to talk about the issue presented it better than some of the other people they interviewed to talk about it?
Even if so, it's obvious that he presented it better only due to centuries-long Systemic Oppression! Don't you know how it works nowadays?
If this gets enacted, Google should simply delist any publication that decides to use their newly acquired "rights". Also, although not totally on topic, add a filter that hides all paywalled content from search results. And while we're at it, unconditionally hide websites using tricks that hide content after the user has loaded the page.
Well I guess this means it's going to be possible to get the "forgotten" info using a VPN with a server located outside of EU and other asshole countries (my own included) that require the enforcement of this bullshit "right".
Re taking your data with you: How portable is this data anyway? Is it realistic to take data from one device and use it (perhaps with custom-programmed transformations) to directly control another device in a way that does not invalidate its certification and clinical testing results? I'm fairly ignorant on these issues so may be talking out of my ass.
Intent cannot make attribution part of the message if there's no attribution as such in the message (as in my example above). So, not relevant, and any deceptiveness has to be contained in the message itself.
Besides, the "discord" you're talking about is already there in the readers' minds (you yourself mention receptiveness here). Without the evidence showing that a specific side was favored, it's more like multiplying the denominator and the numerator in a fraction by the same number, which causes them to mutually cancel. It really looks like all this rhetoric about "sowing discord" was launched in an attempt to make an impression of something scary without having anything specific and objective to say.
The only successful tactic of Russian trolls, used domestically, is littering up the discussion space with obvious garbage to create a disincentive for participating. That they can do well, and it's not something they seem to do at a notable scale in the US. Actually, no: there is another tactic they use, the one of getting Facebook etc. ban their opponents. They've made great strides with this recently at home.
How can this be true? Consider any political statement you find true and imagine an ad that contains just this statement and nothing more. Perhaps with the word "Advertisement" in small print somewhere, and nothing readily pointing to the identity of the one who posted the ad. In this case, how does the validity of the message as it is for the reader and its impact on the reader depend on that identity?
It can sometimes be. The attribution has to be a prominent part of the content for that to matter, and even then it is easy to distinguish the resulting sub-messages "X is true" and "It's me John Doe saying X is true" with their associated contexts and implications. I use my brain to figure that out.
At least in the case of political ads, I don't care if the advertiser lies about their true identity unless the validity of the message itself depends on it (most often, it doesn't). Yes, the advertiser may be insincere or hypocritical—so what. After all, it's advertising we're talking about here. The only thing I want to know is that a particular message is an advertisement, and I'll take care of the rest using this thing called brain. I know it's not perfect, but then nobody's brain is.
Waterfox does behave somewhat better than Firefox in some respects but not universally. I have to shut it down after hibernation all the time (sleep is OK).
Slashdot Mirror
You are not entitled to interaction, including a business interaction, with anyone else any more than an arbitrary person is entitled to having sex with you. Laws to the contrary do exist; we do live with them and also call them bullshit which they are.
Yeah, you can mod me all the way down—this law WILL be used as I say.
Oh, and this law will also serve as a convenient pretext for concealing the identity, attributes, and/or specific words or actions of a perpetrator if revealing them is deemed, say, "racist", as it happens today sometimes.
... for the attack. The actual (ostensible) motivations are described in the terrorist's manifesto which, in some countries, is now a crime to possess. While problematic, this law is less of a problem than a hypothetical law criminalizing hate speech would be.
n/t
Because when a large business entity asks to increase taxes "on itself" (mind the weasel words!), in reality it wants that tax to contribute to eliminating smaller competitors for who this tax increase will become a heavier relative burden.
Living in a country that is currently pretty oppressive in terms of speech (Russia) and observing the same tendencies all over the world, I'm starting to kind of like these developments. The larger the scale of censorship, the quicker people adopt the media and channel that simply cannot be censored, at least without a big collateral damage to national and international IT infrastructure.
This.
Truth is not stigmatization. Suppressing attempts to find truth is bigotry
What if the person they used in the segment to talk about the issue presented it better than some of the other people they interviewed to talk about it?
Even if so, it's obvious that he presented it better only due to centuries-long Systemic Oppression! Don't you know how it works nowadays?
Thanks for the reference to EULALyzer! Now let me read their own EULA...
If the price is too high, I just don't buy.
If this gets enacted, Google should simply delist any publication that decides to use their newly acquired "rights".
Also, although not totally on topic, add a filter that hides all paywalled content from search results. And while we're at it, unconditionally hide websites using tricks that hide content after the user has loaded the page.
Same here.
"Fatal shooting" is not a sufficient description. Circumstances of the "shooting" matter.
Well I guess this means it's going to be possible to get the "forgotten" info using a VPN with a server located outside of EU and other asshole countries (my own included) that require the enforcement of this bullshit "right".
Re taking your data with you: How portable is this data anyway? Is it realistic to take data from one device and use it (perhaps with custom-programmed transformations) to directly control another device in a way that does not invalidate its certification and clinical testing results? I'm fairly ignorant on these issues so may be talking out of my ass.
Intent cannot make attribution part of the message if there's no attribution as such in the message (as in my example above). So, not relevant, and any deceptiveness has to be contained in the message itself.
Besides, the "discord" you're talking about is already there in the readers' minds (you yourself mention receptiveness here). Without the evidence showing that a specific side was favored, it's more like multiplying the denominator and the numerator in a fraction by the same number, which causes them to mutually cancel. It really looks like all this rhetoric about "sowing discord" was launched in an attempt to make an impression of something scary without having anything specific and objective to say.
The only successful tactic of Russian trolls, used domestically, is littering up the discussion space with obvious garbage to create a disincentive for participating. That they can do well, and it's not something they seem to do at a notable scale in the US. Actually, no: there is another tactic they use, the one of getting Facebook etc. ban their opponents. They've made great strides with this recently at home.
How can this be true? Consider any political statement you find true and imagine an ad that contains just this statement and nothing more. Perhaps with the word "Advertisement" in small print somewhere, and nothing readily pointing to the identity of the one who posted the ad. In this case, how does the validity of the message as it is for the reader and its impact on the reader depend on that identity?
It can sometimes be. The attribution has to be a prominent part of the content for that to matter, and even then it is easy to distinguish the resulting sub-messages "X is true" and "It's me John Doe saying X is true" with their associated contexts and implications. I use my brain to figure that out.
At least in the case of political ads, I don't care if the advertiser lies about their true identity unless the validity of the message itself depends on it (most often, it doesn't). Yes, the advertiser may be insincere or hypocritical—so what. After all, it's advertising we're talking about here. The only thing I want to know is that a particular message is an advertisement, and I'll take care of the rest using this thing called brain. I know it's not perfect, but then nobody's brain is.
Well, in fact, it's just no trust for Mozilla.
Waterfox does behave somewhat better than Firefox in some respects but not universally. I have to shut it down after hibernation all the time (sleep is OK).
Holy cow!
Thank you for the first comment to the actual point.