You can't cater to everyone. At some point the cost benefit ratio isn't there. I'm not willing to make 300 million people suffer and doubt the veracity of their elections for the benefit of 53 not having to drive a little further. At some point people are choosing to be hermits in an isolated and remote part of the country.
I don't recall the part of the Constitution that says rights are guaranteed depending on a "cost benefit ratio".
When you find it, can we start looking at 1st and 2nd Amendment rights in terms of "cost-benefit ratio"?
Additionally, in Texas you are required to have ID on you by law if you are over 18
I've lived in Texas. Do you know it's illegal in Texas to take more than three sips of beer while standing? That you have to get a five-dollar permit before you can go barefoot? Did you know that the Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas by state law? My point is, fuck Texas. We really shouldn't use Texas laws as anything like an example for the rest of the country.
Going door to door wont work buy having the office be the same office for drivers license and car registration would work.
Why not just let the Post Office and PO substations give out ID cards for voting, and do it for free? If they can issue passports, they can goddamn well issue voting ID cards.
Terlingua is in the middle of nowhere in ridiculously massive state with a whole lot of nowhere. It is a literal ghost town attraction with a population of 58 people who operate it and a lodge a tourist attraction.
So, you're OK taking away peoples' voting rights, as long as it's just a few people?
It's not so much voter ID that's the problem for many people, it's the suite of suppressive laws that always accompanies voter ID laws. For example, closing polling places in minority districts, closing DMVs in minority districts, preventing students who live in the district 9 months out of the year from voting, revoking people's voting rights for having the same name as someone else, etc etc.
Plus, how would you feel about a requirement of an ID to exercise 1st Amendment rights?
I notice that in no part of your post do you include anything like evidence. It's all assertions without even showing what these "misleading mailings" look like. Can you give us a reason we should take what you say seriously?
There are municipalities with laws against using/driving ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles in certain areas of their corporate limits. (/. has reported on this times in the past.)
That's just a hair's breath away from "nazi".
Yes, the Nazis were famous for being opposed to the internal combustion engine. You knob.
Youtube, and all the social media/market place tech companies are caught between those who want more freedom and less censorship and for them to behave as a passive neutral channel of goods and information and those who want more 'safety' and control and proactive regulation of content.
YouTube never saw itself as a "passive neutral channel of goods and information". Does it matter to you what a private company wants its business model to be, or are all businesses now required to give equal time to every single jackoff and dirtbag and only do business according to the dictates of your political agenda?
When did you think YouTube was aiming to be a "passive neutral channel of goods and information", anyway?
Also, they don't "remote in," the router is just set to automatically check their server for firmware updates periodically and install them if available. And if it's combined with a cable modem, it'll automatically update firmware when it registers with their equipment as part of the normal provisioning process.
Firmware updates should not change settings.
If you don't like it then buy your own router and manage your firmware and DNS settings yourself.
Or better still, enforce antitrust laws and force the ISPs to learn how to behave.
You may be a counter-example to the findings of this study. Clearly, screen time has had a great impact on your well-being. Now get to bed. You're still a growing boy and you need your sleep. You can leave the light on if you're scared.
A publicly held corporation, OTOH, has no rights, constitutional or otherwise. It does not have the right to political expression.
That is 100% not true. You can go all the way back to Santa Clara v Southern Pacific and the Supreme Court has never held a distinction under the First Amendment for publicly held vs closely held corporations.
And Citizens United, the most recent case, also did not hold a distinction.
Did I mention that we need to ban publicly held corporations making campaign contributions?
I agree, but that's not the law of the land right now. And campaign contributions have been traditionally been treated differently from a company's ability to choose the content it publishes, or does not publish.
Sen. Josh Hawley tore into Twitter yesterday, calling for a third party audit of their policies. When you have Republican senators calling for more regulation, clearly you've lost the thread.
Republicans are just butthurt because if hate speech and white supremacy are banned on social media, they won't have any way to get their message out and will have to go back to passing handbills at Klan rallies.
You're assuming we're able to flip the Senate in 2020, which would need a far more decisive turnaround than we managed in 2018.
Not really. We only need to flip 3 seats, and this time around, all the vulnerable seats are Republican. There will be a net pickup in the Senate of 7.
But some of these are the same companies that try to censor certain viewpoints on their own platforms. So neutrality of data is fine, but neutrality of opinion isn't.
You're not being clear. Are you saying every company with a web presence has to have a "neutrality of opinion"? Are you sure you want that?
Also, are they a publicly held corporation? I have no idea. If not, it's a different world.
Why does it matter if they are publicly held or privately held? In both cases, they own their property. Maybe you don't understand what "publicly held" means. It doesn't mean that it's owned by the general public or that it's publicly owned. It just means that anyone can buy shares.
Also, courts have held that Facebook and YouTube are indeed "publishers", but the distinction doesn't matter. Either way, it's their company, and by law (and Supreme Court precedent) they can do whatever the fuck they want. If they don't want racist speech, or hate speech, or even conservative speech, they can refuse to carry it.
And before you ask, No, I don't care if some god-bothering baker decides not to make a cake for gay weddings. Go ahead and turn away business.
A better analogy would be if Breitbart refused to sell you ad space for your socialist screed.
No. You seem to have forgotten that YouTube hasn't sold a goddamn thing to the people who post videos. They're not the customers. They're the product, and their relationship to YouTube is entirely voluntary...on both sides.
And why are you OK with Breitbart censoring my 2000-word essay on the benefits of Socialism by not posting it on their website?
It's better to hold the executive responsible rather than the managers or developers who chose poor security practices because s/he's the rich one!
Do you know what "executive" means? Do you know why they make hundreds of times more money than the average developer? It's because they're supposed to be responsible. Of course you should hold the executive responsible for these breaches. They were the ones in charge.
Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar.
Do you realize your supporting data actually verifies that you're not being truthful? You provide data for 2015 and 2016, but your assertion was about "after the election". Do you know that most of your increase in "anti-white motivations" were hate crimes against gays? Your desperate to show somehow that right-wing hate crimes perpetrated by white people are not increasing. You have failed to do so and have instead resorted to red herrings.
That's a lot of words to say that you like censorship. I don't.
If you don't like censorship, then why do you promote irresponsible behavior that will inevitably lead to censorship?
It's never failed, you know. At some point, society will say, "enough" to the edgelords and then bring down the hammer. If you want to push the envelope in violent and hateful ways, prepare to accept society's consequences. But remember, you're bringing down everyone else with you. Whether we like it or not, this is how it works, and how it's always worked.
And say what you will about the right but you can go to any right wing website and be as leftist as you want,
Breitbart refused to publish my 2000 word essay on the benefits of Socialism. And that was before they banned me from their comments section for saying Steve Bannon looks like Baron Harkonnen.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't recall the part of the Constitution that says rights are guaranteed depending on a "cost benefit ratio".
When you find it, can we start looking at 1st and 2nd Amendment rights in terms of "cost-benefit ratio"?
I've lived in Texas. Do you know it's illegal in Texas to take more than three sips of beer while standing? That you have to get a five-dollar permit before you can go barefoot? Did you know that the Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas by state law? My point is, fuck Texas. We really shouldn't use Texas laws as anything like an example for the rest of the country.
Why not just let the Post Office and PO substations give out ID cards for voting, and do it for free? If they can issue passports, they can goddamn well issue voting ID cards.
So, you're OK taking away peoples' voting rights, as long as it's just a few people?
It's not so much voter ID that's the problem for many people, it's the suite of suppressive laws that always accompanies voter ID laws. For example, closing polling places in minority districts, closing DMVs in minority districts, preventing students who live in the district 9 months out of the year from voting, revoking people's voting rights for having the same name as someone else, etc etc.
Plus, how would you feel about a requirement of an ID to exercise 1st Amendment rights?
I notice that in no part of your post do you include anything like evidence. It's all assertions without even showing what these "misleading mailings" look like. Can you give us a reason we should take what you say seriously?
Yes, the Nazis were famous for being opposed to the internal combustion engine. You knob.
YouTube never saw itself as a "passive neutral channel of goods and information". Does it matter to you what a private company wants its business model to be, or are all businesses now required to give equal time to every single jackoff and dirtbag and only do business according to the dictates of your political agenda?
When did you think YouTube was aiming to be a "passive neutral channel of goods and information", anyway?
Having shitty internet to own the libs. Brilliant strategy, you knob.
Firmware updates should not change settings.
Or better still, enforce antitrust laws and force the ISPs to learn how to behave.
I don't know about golf, but I like them little meatballs.
You may be a counter-example to the findings of this study. Clearly, screen time has had a great impact on your well-being. Now get to bed. You're still a growing boy and you need your sleep. You can leave the light on if you're scared.
That is 100% not true. You can go all the way back to Santa Clara v Southern Pacific and the Supreme Court has never held a distinction under the First Amendment for publicly held vs closely held corporations.
And Citizens United, the most recent case, also did not hold a distinction.
I agree, but that's not the law of the land right now. And campaign contributions have been traditionally been treated differently from a company's ability to choose the content it publishes, or does not publish.
Republicans are just butthurt because if hate speech and white supremacy are banned on social media, they won't have any way to get their message out and will have to go back to passing handbills at Klan rallies.
Not really. We only need to flip 3 seats, and this time around, all the vulnerable seats are Republican. There will be a net pickup in the Senate of 7.
Is it just me, or does "AI expert Ian Goodfellow" sound like a character from a William Gibson novel?
You're not being clear. Are you saying every company with a web presence has to have a "neutrality of opinion"? Are you sure you want that?
That's OK. You get people on the record for supporting it (or not), and then, after the 2020 elections, you have a bill ready to go.
Why does it matter if they are publicly held or privately held? In both cases, they own their property. Maybe you don't understand what "publicly held" means. It doesn't mean that it's owned by the general public or that it's publicly owned. It just means that anyone can buy shares.
Also, courts have held that Facebook and YouTube are indeed "publishers", but the distinction doesn't matter. Either way, it's their company, and by law (and Supreme Court precedent) they can do whatever the fuck they want. If they don't want racist speech, or hate speech, or even conservative speech, they can refuse to carry it.
And before you ask, No, I don't care if some god-bothering baker decides not to make a cake for gay weddings. Go ahead and turn away business.
That's not what happened here, but you do seem to grasp the correct usage of a red herring, you knob.
Here is a direct quote from your comment:
And, that assertion is not true.
No. You seem to have forgotten that YouTube hasn't sold a goddamn thing to the people who post videos. They're not the customers. They're the product, and their relationship to YouTube is entirely voluntary...on both sides.
And why are you OK with Breitbart censoring my 2000-word essay on the benefits of Socialism by not posting it on their website?
Private property is private. Don't you think so?
Do you know what "executive" means? Do you know why they make hundreds of times more money than the average developer? It's because they're supposed to be responsible. Of course you should hold the executive responsible for these breaches. They were the ones in charge.
Do you realize your supporting data actually verifies that you're not being truthful? You provide data for 2015 and 2016, but your assertion was about "after the election". Do you know that most of your increase in "anti-white motivations" were hate crimes against gays? Your desperate to show somehow that right-wing hate crimes perpetrated by white people are not increasing. You have failed to do so and have instead resorted to red herrings.
If you don't like censorship, then why do you promote irresponsible behavior that will inevitably lead to censorship?
It's never failed, you know. At some point, society will say, "enough" to the edgelords and then bring down the hammer. If you want to push the envelope in violent and hateful ways, prepare to accept society's consequences. But remember, you're bringing down everyone else with you. Whether we like it or not, this is how it works, and how it's always worked.
Breitbart refused to publish my 2000 word essay on the benefits of Socialism. And that was before they banned me from their comments section for saying Steve Bannon looks like Baron Harkonnen.
So, I'm sorry, you're just wrong.