...Newscorp was arguing that society needs this money because journalists are a bulwark against the flood of misinformation on Facebook.They're not wrong, they're just massive flaming hypocrites who should not count themselves as journalists.
I see you only managed to digest the first dozen or so words of that paragraph before farting out your nonsense reply.
You could've just said "Yeah, you're right", but ok...
You understand he hires really expensive lawyers, right?And then he tells them what to do. You understand that's what clients do right? The lawyers may have explained how unlikely he is to succeed, but unless he wants them to do something that breaks the law or risks their law license, they can choose to take the money and do what he wants regardless of the likely outcome.
Abso-fricking-lutely.
Going to university means spending upwards of tens of thousands of dollars to study the law in an environment dedicated to that (and other educational) purpose...And it also gives you access to Harvard's time machine, which is how Gorsuch took those classes on S230 as Matty explained. Worth every penny.
Yeah, you’re right, Gorsuch went to Harvard Law before 230 existed. He still went to harvard law and you did not. He is still a legal expert, and you are not. You are not even an expert on section 230. You are actually legally barred from claiming that you are.Oof, that's pathetic Matty, even for you. It literally sounds like a butthurt teenager.
Con men get REAL offended when you point out the snake oils is, y’know.That definitely explains the para above.
There you are complete fuucking wrong. I assure you they will affect the internet a great deal...Why don't you explain to us how curbing the anti-consumer behaviors of monopolistic ISP's is going to effect the entire worldwide network that is The Internet. Don't just make wild claims, explain yourself.
I'm genuinely interested to know who exactly you think are on those two tiers. I'm confident most here would see it as rich vs. poor or 'elites' vs the masses, but I think you'll have a different take...
“Net neutrality” is just an excuse for more government interference in the internet which is almost never a good idea.Net neutrality is the default natural state of the broadband market in every country with a effective competition, i.e. where customers can chose from multiple providers and easily change between them, and as a result providers don't take every opportunity to fuck over their customers for a buck. NN regulations are not required in these countries. NN regs are not "government interference in the internet", they don't affect The Internet at all. They are consumer protections against corporate abuse.
Absolutely not true. Simply using a platform never implies full, unqualified support of everything the platform does or says.
I'm sure the fact that I used almost the exact same words in a reply to you just a few days ago is a complete coincidence. You also seem to have missed the topical humor.
Yeah, next you’re gonna tell me North Korea is a democratic republic cuz it’s in the name.Nice plagiarism Matty ;)
The constitution doesn't tell anybody anything, it's a bit of paper. It's the SC that tells you what to do, based on their own personal interpretation of the constitution, which depends on a number of varying factors apparently including how sick that RV would be to have.
Oh, yeah, govt. should cancel all govt. contracts w/ ElmoThey can't, they're in too deep and have no good alternatives.
There's plenty of anecdotal evidence from former Tesla and SpaceX employees that most of the time he is protected from his own worst ideas by the much smarter people he employs. When he gets his own way we get an overgrown Hot Wheels truck or a crater blasted into Boca Chica. That layer of protection seems to be missing at exTwitter.
Media matters created a controversy, by engineering a problem that they designed themselves...Doing a thing that anybody could do, just doing it quicker than normal, is not "engineering a problem". And I'm pretty sure it's the Nazi content that should be considered controversial, not the people finding it.
Republicans are rightly frustrated by censorship that often tilts against conservatives, including us.Moderation on SM sites often tilts against abusive assholes who can't follow a set of rules put in place to maximise the number of satisfied users and advertisers. The fact that there is a disproportionate overlap between Republicans/conservatives and said assholes is a YOU problem.
You simply can't become a billionaire without shitting on a lot of people on the way up. Some form of sociopathy is pretty much a requirement, no one gets that rich by being nice.