The authors and commentariat here overwhelmingly think corporations should do better in many respects, including their handling of speech on social platforms. They say so repeatedly. (And then get poorly played "gotcha" comments from people who somehow think you can't be against a corporate decision but maintain the right of corporations to make certain kinds of bad decisions.) What one cannot expect is any legal foundation for challenging their editorial powers.
Conservatives, by and large, have far more funding. They can easily set up a conservativebook or extreme right wingnutbook. Probably the latter as i don't see the liberal conspiracy crap from those who fall into the category of what used to be the average (political) conservative.
Regardless what people may answer, if they were in fact ever asked, you are correct to bring up the question related to your point 3. I would also add - Even if they answered yes, do they understand the implications? Further, do they actually look at your stupid ads at all?
Why bother with life when corporations can hold the rights? Just make it infinity. It will be a shoe-in for corporate-owned machine-ownership when we get there. (Also: Monkeys.)
They weren't paying pre-internet. And despite the fact that copying an infinite good results in no actual losses, we can generously pretend they are actual losses, and they amount to a tiny percent. This does not result in non-payment to artists whatsoever. And these asshats get a "tax" on all blank media ever sold, despite the fact that a whacking great chunk of said media is not used for recording any copyrighted material whatsoever.
They don't pay the artists, because they pay themselves. They are screwing the artist and the consumer, and it is truly sad for those of you who cannot figure this out. Both artists and consumers would have it better off without these gatekeepers.
Not that this matters, since i think you are committed to your line of bullshit no matter what. In no possible universe does the casual infringer hurt anyone's income. Spending money on threats and lawyers, on the other hand,,, pricey.
"ad hominem attacks" are not a thing. this is a phase used to make it sound like your argument has been refuted improperly. if someone insulted you, call it a personal attack or whatever. if someone did, in fact, attempt to make a counter-argument using argumentum ad hominem, then they have made a fallacious counter-argument. there is a difference. if they say your argument is invalid because of some claimed personal flaw of yours, that is an argumentum ad hominem.
for example: x cannot ever be good, because the government created x, and the government is bad. this is an argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy. "ad hominem attack" is just a stupid phrase. maybe you are just parroting something used by stupid people, so you might not want to do that.
also, "attacking the messenger" means abusing a neutral party who is merely reporting facts beyond their control. it does not mean "disagreeing with the claims of a person who keeps repeating them".
you can call shit whatever you want, but it is either ignorant, or calculated rhetoric designed to win debate points outside any actual merit of your argument.
so beyond that, hey, i agree there are serious issues with government, but personal, unfettered liberty is no better. i would rather deal with some regulatory capture and bad laws than to deal with completely unrestrained corporations and neighbors. they don't give a fuck about the constitution or your rights when it suits them either, and they are way more proximal.
I still don't even understand the takedown of "terrorist-related" content. That stuff is ripe for response videos. As for editorializing, shove all of it under a tag or into a metachannel named "lol, look at these assholes".
You can radicalize way more anti-terrorists than potential terrorists with terrorist-generated content. The whole removal thing is theatre anyway.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It means, "by zooming through the air. zoom zoom."
Re: Re: Re: Net neutrality hypocracy
The authors and commentariat here overwhelmingly think corporations should do better in many respects, including their handling of speech on social platforms. They say so repeatedly. (And then get poorly played "gotcha" comments from people who somehow think you can't be against a corporate decision but maintain the right of corporations to make certain kinds of bad decisions.) What one cannot expect is any legal foundation for challenging their editorial powers.
Conservatives, by and large, have far more funding. They can easily set up a conservativebook or extreme right wingnutbook. Probably the latter as i don't see the liberal conspiracy crap from those who fall into the category of what used to be the average (political) conservative.
Re: Re: Re: Net neutrality hypocracy
The First Amendment enabled the "censorship" powers of newspapers and "social media". Deal with it.
Re: Re: 'If you want to be respected earn it, do not EVER demand it'
Maybe if you read the original piece for comprehension instead of glossing it over with an agenda?
Re: Re:
It's a trope/meme claim, yeah.
Re:
Regardless what people may answer, if they were in fact ever asked, you are correct to bring up the question related to your point 3. I would also add - Even if they answered yes, do they understand the implications? Further, do they actually look at your stupid ads at all?
Re:
IDK, someone or other keeps banging on about how teh fakenewz is illegal and a threat to our country. Maybe he will do something about that.
Re: Prescient forecasting
"It'd sure be awful if something happened to your phone bill and bandwidth/data allowance."
Re: Re: Proof
Double-secret false flag fifth column psyops propaganda.
Re: Re:
Google did it.
Re: Gosh, what expertise, to RE-WRITE minor piece after a few days!
Is that all you've got? For real?
Sometimes a bit of linked context and an additional comment are all that is needed when reporting some things.
Of course, you'd complain if there was an "unnecessary in-depth analysis that was covered elsewhere last week" as well.
Your attempts at fallacious arguments need more work.
Re:
Why bother with life when corporations can hold the rights? Just make it infinity. It will be a shoe-in for corporate-owned machine-ownership when we get there. (Also: Monkeys.)
Re: Re: Re:
They weren't paying pre-internet. And despite the fact that copying an infinite good results in no actual losses, we can generously pretend they are actual losses, and they amount to a tiny percent. This does not result in non-payment to artists whatsoever. And these asshats get a "tax" on all blank media ever sold, despite the fact that a whacking great chunk of said media is not used for recording any copyrighted material whatsoever.
They don't pay the artists, because they pay themselves. They are screwing the artist and the consumer, and it is truly sad for those of you who cannot figure this out. Both artists and consumers would have it better off without these gatekeepers.
Not that this matters, since i think you are committed to your line of bullshit no matter what. In no possible universe does the casual infringer hurt anyone's income. Spending money on threats and lawyers, on the other hand,,, pricey.
I have a better solution than a highly-valued company: It's called "gamers". Shh. I want to patent them.
They... bothered looking for this assclown? In Ecuador?!
I hope it is better for his family, anyway.
Geez, Adventure Time would have a better claim.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"ad hominem attacks" are not a thing. this is a phase used to make it sound like your argument has been refuted improperly. if someone insulted you, call it a personal attack or whatever. if someone did, in fact, attempt to make a counter-argument using argumentum ad hominem, then they have made a fallacious counter-argument. there is a difference. if they say your argument is invalid because of some claimed personal flaw of yours, that is an argumentum ad hominem.
for example: x cannot ever be good, because the government created x, and the government is bad. this is an argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy. "ad hominem attack" is just a stupid phrase. maybe you are just parroting something used by stupid people, so you might not want to do that.
also, "attacking the messenger" means abusing a neutral party who is merely reporting facts beyond their control. it does not mean "disagreeing with the claims of a person who keeps repeating them".
you can call shit whatever you want, but it is either ignorant, or calculated rhetoric designed to win debate points outside any actual merit of your argument.
so beyond that, hey, i agree there are serious issues with government, but personal, unfettered liberty is no better. i would rather deal with some regulatory capture and bad laws than to deal with completely unrestrained corporations and neighbors. they don't give a fuck about the constitution or your rights when it suits them either, and they are way more proximal.
Re: Re:
And have it so all possible positive effect apply, and negative ones do not apply, to them as well, as not-US-citizens.
This is how power and privilege thinks.
I still don't even understand the takedown of "terrorist-related" content. That stuff is ripe for response videos. As for editorializing, shove all of it under a tag or into a metachannel named "lol, look at these assholes".
You can radicalize way more anti-terrorists than potential terrorists with terrorist-generated content. The whole removal thing is theatre anyway.
Re: Re: Re:
I think it was a self-demo of how shit doesn't fit narratives or something. In a fractal manner.