The solution is simple: remove legal protection from these companies and hold them responsible for anything that appears on their web sites.
The person criticizing the EU for "criminalizing speech" earlier this week is now advocating for criminalizing speech -- so long as it is merely the courts destroying mechanisms for distributing speech at the whims of private interests.
You truly are an idiot.
Hint: remove legal protection from those companies and you must remove them from all companies. And then you can kiss your ability to post insanity like this goodbye. Nobody will be willing to pay copywriters and attorneys to review your material, so the internet will turn into an electronic version of a newspaper -- usatoday.com -- minus any comment mechanism.
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.
What private spat would that be?
Jourova wants to criminalize speech she doesn't like
Citation needed.
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.
No, she really did not. She expressed the entirely lawful requirement that Facebook needed to change its ToS to comply with the GDPR. The link to "threats" and "criminalizing speech" is not obvious because neither the article no anything that you have posted supports that conclusion.
, [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.
If it's so important to insert "in my opinion" into the accusation of bigotry, why did you not do that in your own?
BTW, American IP and technology lawyer here. You won't succeed. 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.
And expressing concern about a business is just being friendly, right? "Nice restaurant you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it!"
As if there was no pre-existing dispute with the EU concerning Facebook's compliance with consumer protection laws. Oh wait, there is!
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.
Nice strawman that you've built. Now please connect the consumer protection laws like the GDPR to criminaliation of speech. Because if you cannot, you cannot say that that is what I think (not that you could anyway), and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your logical fallacy.
BTW, you're a bigot for claiming that I should be ostracized, so welcome to the club that you placed me in.
But there is no "paradox": despite the offensiveness of your beliefs, I'm not calling for them to be criminalized.
See above. Now throw out the strawman and return to reality.
From wikipedia: Intel stated in 2015 that the pace of advancement has slowed, starting at the 22 nm feature width around 2012, and continuing at 14 nm. Brian Krzanich, the former CEO of Intel, announced, "Our cadence today is closer to two and a half years than two." Intel is expected to reach the 10 nm node in 2018, a three-year cadence.
So Moore's Law is slowing from 2 to 3 years.
Which slipped to 4Q2019, with little prospects of an (Intel-scale) 7 nm process following on any reasonable timescale.
3 years my hiney... the hockey stick of development time versus feature scale went to 4 years and it's not stopping there...
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.
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.
Stop threatening me.
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.
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.
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.
Celebrities can afford personal assistants to junk that garbage. Celebrities can afford to junk email and Facebook because people want to talk to them one-on-one, not necessarily the other way around. The Internet looney bin is replaced with the much smaller, traditional looney bin once you move to a largely snail-mail only communications methodology.
It starts with "Once again, a nasty legal battle has pulled back the curtain of secrecy that shrouds major game-industry deals. " i.e. there's been a lot of them.
And then goes on to describe how several founders allegedly screwed another founder out of his share of ownership so that they could make more from a buyout.
Money problem, not a Linux problem.
Agreements with microsoft to not let any of their studios produce linux versions
Link?
replying to linux support requests that they are breaching terms of service by using their pc games on Linux (that was the point I banned them iirc)
Link?
just a pile the size of everest of examples,
Not a single on of which you've actually provided support for.
I didn't exactly keep a journal, but as far as I know its well known to linux gamers.
Then you should be able to show it to others, not just link anything that mentions lawsuit and claim it's because of Linux.
The one that immediately springs to mind is the various id software court cases. but there are a lot of them, as mentioned in https://www.gamespot.com/artic...
Which mentions a single ID software court case that has to do with share ownership squabbles, with nary a mention of Linux.
I keep asking for support, and you keep pretending that you've provided it. Yet no lawsuits, firings, or bans intentionally related to Linux usage can be found.
So you utterly missed the part of your own link that stated:
UPDATE: It seems Linux was never a platform to begin with! Quote It's also worth adding a quick note here in case people don't see my clarification later in the thread - Linux was never a platform we were developing for and I simply assumed that it was. Shoot the messenger if you need to, this was entirely a bad assumption on my part.
What legal action? What developer firings? All you've done is link to pages that say that Linux is not a supported platform. It's not impressive at all.
There is nothing backing their value other then then a very basic system of trust...
where, backed by police forces, their collective units of government require that 25-50% of the value of their GDP be transferred to them in that currency.
Yes, my friend, 25-50% of the entire productive capacity of hundreds of millions of people is something.
which works fine until you need a wheel barrow to buy a bread.
Any system can be screwed up, but only the government can take your wheel barrow. And that is the fundamental difference between a government-backed currency and cryptocurrency.
All relevant parts of Chrome, JavaScript and HTML engines, plugin architecture, etc are open source. Additionally Chrome has far fewer proprietary extensions then IE ever had. It's just that Edge still does not support basic stuff like Formdata.
Chrome is not open source, Chromium is. And even then:
"Drive-by trojan installs [of Chromium] inside of unrelated software. Endless nagging to change [to] the [Chromiom] browser, leveraging their market share of online services (search, email, etc) to do so. Proprietary web markup resulting in "This page requires Google [Chromium]" crap that Microsoft got their ass reamed out about during the original browser wars."
How would open-sourceness negate the abuse-of-market practices that surround each mention of an (allegedly) open source browser? The fact that others could pump oil from the ground was not sufficient to save Standard Oil, because what is prohibited is the behavior by those having market power, not having a unique product.
And again, Chrome is not open source, Chromium is.
The fact they now have to advertise the fact that playing on linux isn't a bannable offensive kinda suggests its not false positive;
The fact that they have "advertised" that playing on Linux isn't a bannable offensive rather suggests that it is a false positive, because otherwise there would be masses of Linux gamers who had been banned for using WINE/DVXK long before this. Even TFA calls this a false positive.
and even if it is a false positive, its one false psitive among a pile the size of Everest of true positives.
You surely realize that a small rate of false positives in relation to a gigantic number of true positives is the sign of a highly sensitive, desirable screen, don't you?
TFA reports all of 5 bans, and here you are white knighting on behalf of those five on a random discussion board. You're so-obscure-as-to-be-silent support has surely comforted them and spurred Blizzard into action. Oh, wait, Blizzard was taking action 10 hours before this was even posted on Slashdot
I'm willing to rethink the ban if they stop actively trying to undermine linux gaming.
A false positive is not "actively trying to undermine linux gaming."
But just so long as you're willing to make same "ban first, think about it later mistake" that you're complaining of, more power to you. Improving the world zero steps at a time.
not really, I banned activision from my house due to their treatment of linux.
But you're willing to reconsider and rescind your ban if they provide a reasonable explanation for why their anticheat technology flagged a false negative and fix it, right?
I`m obsessed?! Says the one who has three times now written "bye," yet does not leave. I`m amusing myself while watching TMitHC. You`ve stopped making claims that call for researched rebuttals and lapsed into inane insults, so it`s not taking actual time and effort...
No that observation is unique to you. But both TheFakeTimCook and I agree that you`re Looney Toons, so I suppose that you`re simply projecting yet again.
Slashdot Mirror
47 USC 230(c)(1)
47 USC 230(c)(2)(A)
I'm missing the part that says "you may choose only one."
Yes, they can. It says so right in the very act that you're discussing.
Invalidated your entire argument in when posting under another article.
You're apparently insufficiently qualified to judge that.
The person criticizing the EU for "criminalizing speech" earlier this week is now advocating for criminalizing speech -- so long as it is merely the courts destroying mechanisms for distributing speech at the whims of private interests.
You truly are an idiot.
Hint: remove legal protection from those companies and you must remove them from all companies. And then you can kiss your ability to post insanity like this goodbye. Nobody will be willing to pay copywriters and attorneys to review your material, so the internet will turn into an electronic version of a newspaper -- usatoday.com -- minus any comment mechanism.
And it will be glorious... /s
What private spat would that be?
Citation needed.
No, she really did not. She expressed the entirely lawful requirement that Facebook needed to change its ToS to comply with the GDPR. The link to "threats" and "criminalizing speech" is not obvious because neither the article no anything that you have posted supports that conclusion.
If it's so important to insert "in my opinion" into the accusation of bigotry, why did you not do that in your own?
BTW, American IP and technology lawyer here. You won't succeed. 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 if there was no pre-existing dispute with the EU concerning Facebook's compliance with consumer protection laws. Oh wait, there is!
Nice strawman that you've built. Now please connect the consumer protection laws like the GDPR to criminaliation of speech. Because if you cannot, you cannot say that that is what I think (not that you could anyway), and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your logical fallacy.
BTW, you're a bigot for claiming that I should be ostracized, so welcome to the club that you placed me in.
See above. Now throw out the strawman and return to reality.
If you come up with an idea and it's wrong, you're banned from Ideas.
*BANNED*
Which slipped to 4Q2019, with little prospects of an (Intel-scale) 7 nm process following on any reasonable timescale.
3 years my hiney... the hockey stick of development time versus feature scale went to 4 years and it's not stopping there...
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.
Stop threatening me.
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.
Celebrities can afford personal assistants to junk that garbage. Celebrities can afford to junk email and Facebook because people want to talk to them one-on-one, not necessarily the other way around. The Internet looney bin is replaced with the much smaller, traditional looney bin once you move to a largely snail-mail only communications methodology.
Which she did.
Kudos.
And then goes on to describe how several founders allegedly screwed another founder out of his share of ownership so that they could make more from a buyout.
Money problem, not a Linux problem.
Link?
Link?
Not a single on of which you've actually provided support for.
Then you should be able to show it to others, not just link anything that mentions lawsuit and claim it's because of Linux.
Which mentions a single ID software court case that has to do with share ownership squabbles, with nary a mention of Linux.
I keep asking for support, and you keep pretending that you've provided it. Yet no lawsuits, firings, or bans intentionally related to Linux usage can be found.
Sad.
So you utterly missed the part of your own link that stated:
What legal action? What developer firings? All you've done is link to pages that say that Linux is not a supported platform. It's not impressive at all.
where, backed by police forces, their collective units of government require that 25-50% of the value of their GDP be transferred to them in that currency.
Yes, my friend, 25-50% of the entire productive capacity of hundreds of millions of people is something.
Any system can be screwed up, but only the government can take your wheel barrow. And that is the fundamental difference between a government-backed currency and cryptocurrency.
Chrome is not open source, Chromium is. And even then:
"Drive-by trojan installs [of Chromium] inside of unrelated software. Endless nagging to change [to] the [Chromiom] browser, leveraging their market share of online services (search, email, etc) to do so. Proprietary web markup resulting in "This page requires Google [Chromium]" crap that Microsoft got their ass reamed out about during the original browser wars."
How would open-sourceness negate the abuse-of-market practices that surround each mention of an (allegedly) open source browser? The fact that others could pump oil from the ground was not sufficient to save Standard Oil, because what is prohibited is the behavior by those having market power, not having a unique product.
And again, Chrome is not open source, Chromium is.
Umm, there is not one report on that thread of people being banned for using WINE/DXVK.
Youre using "taking action" as a euphemism for what, exactly? Failing to provide support?
The fact that they have "advertised" that playing on Linux isn't a bannable offensive rather suggests that it is a false positive, because otherwise there would be masses of Linux gamers who had been banned for using WINE/DVXK long before this. Even TFA calls this a false positive.
You surely realize that a small rate of false positives in relation to a gigantic number of true positives is the sign of a highly sensitive, desirable screen, don't you?
TFA reports all of 5 bans, and here you are white knighting on behalf of those five on a random discussion board. You're so-obscure-as-to-be-silent support has surely comforted them and spurred Blizzard into action. Oh, wait, Blizzard was taking action 10 hours before this was even posted on Slashdot
Good job, you.
A false positive is not "actively trying to undermine linux gaming."
But just so long as you're willing to make same "ban first, think about it later mistake" that you're complaining of, more power to you. Improving the world zero steps at a time.
But you're willing to reconsider and rescind your ban if they provide a reasonable explanation for why their anticheat technology flagged a false negative and fix it, right?
Of course you're not.
Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.
I`m obsessed?! Says the one who has three times now written "bye," yet does not leave. I`m amusing myself while watching TMitHC. You`ve stopped making claims that call for researched rebuttals and lapsed into inane insults, so it`s not taking actual time and effort...
No that observation is unique to you. But both TheFakeTimCook and I agree that you`re Looney Toons, so I suppose that you`re simply projecting yet again.
Nope. Body of a rock god that smells like an Alpine breeze.
Ah, so now we're back to the content-free insults. Where's your proof?
Not all all. I meant to do that. Prove otherwise. (TM) Tough Love, all rights reserved.
And yet you keep replying. With wrong information.
Quoting misfire! Let's try again.
Not a requirement in your standard of "any product currently ships with it."
Moved goalposts, meet immovable end zone.