You got a link to the Broward county voter registration lookup site to prove that registration? The guy is a convicted felon who probably can't even vote.
Well, the very conservative Washington Examiner is reporting it, so I guess it could be fake.
But you will also note that the story doesn't say he was a convicted felon, only that he had been arrested before on felony charges, and did jail time, but not necessarily for the felonies.
So, a New York thug who moved to Florida. Most of those are DNC loyalists, but it will be interesting to see how the rest of the details progress. Maybe this is an exception. Either way, if it's him, lock him up.
He also drives a van covered with Trump stickers and is a long-time registered Republican. Sorry, guys, but this is exactly what it seemed to be: a MAGA-chud hopped up on Trump's violent rhetoric, going down the list of people Trump has criticized on Twitter and sending them pipe bombs. More right-wing domestic terrorism.
I'm glad that President Trump is focusing on his number of Twitter followers as one of his supporters in Florida is arrested for a terrorist attack on his prominent critics.
He's definitely showing leadership and has his priorities straight.
Indeed, it is — or ought to be — a mind. To be useful in a real world, it has to know about all aspects of it, even if the degree of knowledge can differ between domains.
You're still thinking like an engineer, anthropomorphizing the AI. Do you think for a robot to be useful it has to be bipedal and have the approximate shape and function of a human? The point of an AI is to exceed humanity, not imitate it.
Don't make the mistake of thinking an AI has to operate like a human mind. Stretch yourself and think bigger. You are placing artificial restraints on yourself that are akin to thinking that self-driving cars need to have a robot shaped like a human being operating the steering wheel and pedals and sitting in the driver's seat.
Gosh, I hope the end state for AI isn't something as mundane as law enforcement or military applications. That would show a real lack of imagination on the part of human beings.
but as soon as you make it compete against other AIs that don't possess those characteristics, it will either adapt to possess them itself in order to remain competitive or it will perish
Only if you program competition as a desirable goal. It might not be. You might program them to prefer cooperation to competition. Why would you make "dog-eat-dog" a trait, when AIs don't need to eat? Why take a nature-based paradigm and impose it on a system that has no need for it?
Nah, that doesn't fly at all. Facebook could not ban black people from using its service.
And neither could any private club. But a private club can require that everyone show ID and agree to a list of house rules. And, they can decide when you have violated their terms of service and kick you the fuck out.
Because Facebook makes its money through providing a platform for members of the public to communicate with one another, it's a very close analogy.
It's not. People on Facebook are not "the public" who are just happening through. Each of them has had to register for an account and agree to Terms of Service, and every time they visit they must log in with credentials. It's much more of a private club (albeit a large one) than a public square.
The argument you're making was also made in Cyber Promotions v. America Online where Cyber Promotions argued that by filtering out spam, AOL was violating the spammers First Amendment rights because AOL's email was a virtual "public square", and they cited Marsh v Alabama as precedent. The judges laughed that shit right out of there.
Wasting time arguing with me about something I didn't say. Just like always.
Now wait a minute. This is what you said, and I quote:
"You cannot have true freedom of speech without anonymous speech."
And my response is that if a social media site requires real identity, that does not affect your ability to have anonymous speech one bit.
This is your move, Obfuscant. You say something and then when someone challenges you, your response is always, "You're putting words in my mouth". The words you put in your own mouth are sufficient for this discussion. Find a new way to divert attention from your bullshit.
it was insulting the people speaking who don't want to put their names on their speech.
If you don't want to put your name on your speech, be my guest. There's just no requirement that a commercial social media site has to allow you to do so. Go scrawl your message in chalk on the sidewalk or whatever.
At the time the First Amendment was written, anonymous speech meant either a) word of mouth, in which case you still knew who was spreading the speech, or b) printing pamphlets. So go print your nazi propaganda on a pamphlet and tack them up to trees. It's your First Amendment right, after all.
I don't think that's enough. Outside the online social networks there is the real world with its power struggles which generate torrents of fake news and disinformation. They would push this shit even without ads.
So let them. This discussion pertains specifically to these social media sites. Let the dirtbags spread their misinformation and hate speech via mimeographed flyers printed in their basements. Who cares?
True, but we had to take the worse one (Stalin) on second.
Now wait a minute there. We had to take on the more immediate threat first. Stalin was bad, but he hadn't exactly embarked on an active program of world domination at the time of WWII. Stalin wasn't invading our allies in Western Europe. You've got to take them as they come, thus, Fascists first.
Indeed, but Breitbart has a far smaller reach than Facebook.
Why should that matter? If your theory about commercial properties and the First Amendment are true, does it matter how big a "reach" the company has?
I'm not sure Facebook has a de-facto monopoly over its space
Ah, when you refer to Facebook's "space", you build a trap for yourself. What exactly is Facebook's space? Are there other alternatives for reaching this space? Of course there are. They might not all be as convenient, or as easy to use, but that's not Facebook's fault now, is it? If you want to put in sufficient effort, you can reach the same "space" Facebook serves using other means.
The people living in that company town did leave from time to time, after all, but the dominant way you'd reach them is through the company's property. That meant the company couldn't block protected speech, and had to allow use of it's property for speech it didn't agree with (in this case, it was a Jehova's Witness, so it was also speech that annoyed everyone exposed to it).
So, what if I want to reach specifically the MAGA chuds who only get their news from Breitbart? What alternatives do I have if I want them to read my 4,000 word essay on Trump's tiny mushroom dick?
Sorry, lgw. There's no way out of this one. And even your "company town" apocryphal story is way off-target. There are gated communities all over the United States, and if I demand access to be able to come and ring doorbells there so I can share the good news about how crystals can bring enlightenment, they're going to laugh in my face at the gate and point to the "No Solicitation" sign.
By the way, the case you're referring to, about company towns and free speech, is Marsh v Alabama, from 1946. It has been cited several times as precedent in subsequent First Amendment cases (some including online speech) and it's been laughed out of court every single time.
Are you sure - Stalinist Russia was at one point trying to stop the Nazi's those in power in that era did some pretty; dare I say equally awful things to groups like Roma, homosexuals, various Protestant sects, Polish people.
Sometimes, you have to take on your monsters one at a time.
The SCOTUS has previously ruled that First Amendment protections apply to company property if access to that company property is needed to reach people.
Not if there are other alternatives. I cannot force Breitbart to publish my 4,000 word essay praising Fidel Castro.
Let me type this slowly for you, lgw: Facebook banning The Daily Stormer has absolutely nothing - at all - to do with the First Amendment
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the very conservative Washington Examiner is reporting it, so I guess it could be fake.
But you will also note that the story doesn't say he was a convicted felon, only that he had been arrested before on felony charges, and did jail time, but not necessarily for the felonies.
https://www.washingtonexaminer...
He also drives a van covered with Trump stickers and is a long-time registered Republican. Sorry, guys, but this is exactly what it seemed to be: a MAGA-chud hopped up on Trump's violent rhetoric, going down the list of people Trump has criticized on Twitter and sending them pipe bombs. More right-wing domestic terrorism.
I'm glad that President Trump is focusing on his number of Twitter followers as one of his supporters in Florida is arrested for a terrorist attack on his prominent critics.
He's definitely showing leadership and has his priorities straight.
https://www.abcactionnews.com/...
The headline neglects to mention that these are blockchain media sites.
You mean Vladimir Putin?
I like the Hispanic ones too.
You're still thinking like an engineer, anthropomorphizing the AI. Do you think for a robot to be useful it has to be bipedal and have the approximate shape and function of a human? The point of an AI is to exceed humanity, not imitate it.
Don't make the mistake of thinking an AI has to operate like a human mind. Stretch yourself and think bigger. You are placing artificial restraints on yourself that are akin to thinking that self-driving cars need to have a robot shaped like a human being operating the steering wheel and pedals and sitting in the driver's seat.
So is cooperation. You are anthropomorphizing all systems, and that is a losing strategy.
When my most recent dog died, I realized just how spoiled we are by our dogs.
Sure you can. Use your imagination. Don't be so bloody-minded to think that competition is a necessary state for all systems.
Gosh, I hope the end state for AI isn't something as mundane as law enforcement or military applications. That would show a real lack of imagination on the part of human beings.
Only if you program competition as a desirable goal. It might not be. You might program them to prefer cooperation to competition. Why would you make "dog-eat-dog" a trait, when AIs don't need to eat? Why take a nature-based paradigm and impose it on a system that has no need for it?
Why should AIs compete at all, is the question.
The Democrats, silly.
The side that doesn't kill or threaten journalists would be a good place to start.
OK, there's your problem, right there.
And neither could any private club. But a private club can require that everyone show ID and agree to a list of house rules. And, they can decide when you have violated their terms of service and kick you the fuck out.
It's not. People on Facebook are not "the public" who are just happening through. Each of them has had to register for an account and agree to Terms of Service, and every time they visit they must log in with credentials. It's much more of a private club (albeit a large one) than a public square.
The argument you're making was also made in Cyber Promotions v. America Online where Cyber Promotions argued that by filtering out spam, AOL was violating the spammers First Amendment rights because AOL's email was a virtual "public square", and they cited Marsh v Alabama as precedent. The judges laughed that shit right out of there.
Now wait a minute. This is what you said, and I quote:
And my response is that if a social media site requires real identity, that does not affect your ability to have anonymous speech one bit.
This is your move, Obfuscant. You say something and then when someone challenges you, your response is always, "You're putting words in my mouth". The words you put in your own mouth are sufficient for this discussion. Find a new way to divert attention from your bullshit.
If you don't want to put your name on your speech, be my guest. There's just no requirement that a commercial social media site has to allow you to do so. Go scrawl your message in chalk on the sidewalk or whatever.
At the time the First Amendment was written, anonymous speech meant either a) word of mouth, in which case you still knew who was spreading the speech, or b) printing pamphlets. So go print your nazi propaganda on a pamphlet and tack them up to trees. It's your First Amendment right, after all.
So let them. This discussion pertains specifically to these social media sites. Let the dirtbags spread their misinformation and hate speech via mimeographed flyers printed in their basements. Who cares?
Now wait a minute there. We had to take on the more immediate threat first. Stalin was bad, but he hadn't exactly embarked on an active program of world domination at the time of WWII. Stalin wasn't invading our allies in Western Europe. You've got to take them as they come, thus, Fascists first.
Why should that matter? If your theory about commercial properties and the First Amendment are true, does it matter how big a "reach" the company has?
Ah, when you refer to Facebook's "space", you build a trap for yourself. What exactly is Facebook's space? Are there other alternatives for reaching this space? Of course there are. They might not all be as convenient, or as easy to use, but that's not Facebook's fault now, is it? If you want to put in sufficient effort, you can reach the same "space" Facebook serves using other means.
So, what if I want to reach specifically the MAGA chuds who only get their news from Breitbart? What alternatives do I have if I want them to read my 4,000 word essay on Trump's tiny mushroom dick?
Sorry, lgw. There's no way out of this one. And even your "company town" apocryphal story is way off-target. There are gated communities all over the United States, and if I demand access to be able to come and ring doorbells there so I can share the good news about how crystals can bring enlightenment, they're going to laugh in my face at the gate and point to the "No Solicitation" sign.
By the way, the case you're referring to, about company towns and free speech, is Marsh v Alabama, from 1946. It has been cited several times as precedent in subsequent First Amendment cases (some including online speech) and it's been laughed out of court every single time.
Sometimes, you have to take on your monsters one at a time.
Not if there are other alternatives. I cannot force Breitbart to publish my 4,000 word essay praising Fidel Castro.
Let me type this slowly for you, lgw: Facebook banning The Daily Stormer has absolutely nothing - at all - to do with the First Amendment
Promoting genocide is a little more than an "unpopular opinion".
Society gets to defend itself from monsters. We have experience with this, you know. Ask your parents.