Let's examine the Smartmatic DRE servicing software, owned by left wing activist billionaire George Soros that company is contracted with over 300 counties in 16 different swing states.
Anyone making this claim is proving themselves to be an idiot. The above statement is a totally false conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. It was passed around on some fake news sites, but it is not true.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Elections have consequences
Richard, you're fucking hilarious. If you weren't so wrong about everything I'd think you were peformance art.
So if your nonchanging views are evidence that you're not a shill, then why do you falsely accuse me of being a shill despite my non-changing views? Also, you fucking work for AEI. I run my own small shop. And, yes, we make money from lots of different things, including direct support from our community, t-shirt sales, advertising and events. And, hell, I also make money from expert witnessing.
So since you pulled out the bullshit shill claim first: why is it okay for you to pull it out? I'm not the one who works for a think tank famous for shilling for giant monopolist's interests. You are. I'm not famous for flat out lying about technology policy. You are.
You do realize that you're the climate change denialist of the tech world, right?
No. Unlike you I live in reality. You are in fantasy land, as per usual.
The head of Google Fiber has left the company and the "Access" division has laid off 10% of its staff, more than 100 workers. Google has some ongoing projects to dabble around in, but it's safe to say that the dream that Google Fiber would wire the nation has blown up.
Yes, as noted, Google has changed its focus with Access, but not because of TII. Also, no one EVER said that it would "wire the nation." That's pure bullshit from you and your idiot friends trying to rewrite history.
The layoffs were for some of the additional fiber projects that they've decided to back out of, mainly because of your paymasters blocking them at every turn on things like one touch make ready.
Sure, the company will still buy bankrupt munis and maybe do something with wireless - if they can figure out how wireless works - but that's about all.
"If they can figure out how wireless works." They bought one of the most successful wireless ISPs in SF. Once again, what are you smoking?
As far as ISPs' history with advertising goes, I'm sure you're aware that GoogBook has been fighting them at the gate since the late 00s. T2 makes regulatory arbitrage easier, but before T2 GoogBook was whining about DPI. Congress held hearings on that nonsense from the 2005 onward.
You really don't know a fucking thing, do you? The fight over DPI is not Google protecting its ad revenue, but about protecting user privacy from ISP snooping. And it wasn't led by Google or Facebook, but THE PUBLIC. You know, the group of people you're looking to fuck over for shits, giggles and tons of cash.
Ask your overlords for a fuller briefing, they know the story.
Oh, and of course, you conclude with a made up conspiracy theory. I have no overlords. I know, I know, since YOU DO GET YOUR MARCHING ORDERS from the big telcos, you have to assume that actual honest people must also be shills. You're wrong. And deluded.
I'd tell you to grow up, but I think we've long concluded that you're a perpetually ignorant child, Richard.
Dude, are you high? Since Title II was imposed Google Fiber shut down.
I don't do drugs. But, seriously, I'm curious what you're smoking, because dang, dude, you're fucked up.
Google Fiber didn't shut down. They did change priorities, but not because of Title II.
At the same time, others have entered the market, though you and your friends have helped to block off competition through bullshit crony laws in states barring real competition. You must be so proud.
It was supposed to be the savior of our sad urban markets where it's virtually impossible to get a connection above 300 Mbps.
Don't rewrite history.
Title II has everything to do with advertising because it required the FCC to create privacy regulations for ISPs. This mandate allowed Wheeler to require opt-in for access to data by ISPs that's opt-out for Google and Facebook.
Look, I know you think you have expertise, but you're pulling this completely out of your ass. Yes, Title II allowed the new privacy rules, but those were passed what, 3 weeks ago? Why aren't Verizon or AT&T powerhouses in advertising in all these years they've had? What will suddenly make them able to take ad revenue away from Google and Facebook.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
Is this public policy stuff completely over your head or what?
You're funny, dude. You've been wrong for, what, three decades now? How much longer is this going to go on?
The sooner the FCC or Congress removes broadband from Title II, the better off we'll all be.
Huh? Richard, since the rules passed, we've seen more new entrants and more service upgrades. How do you figure we'll be better off moving in the other direction?
Except for Google and Facebook, it's going to suck for them to have competition in the advertising market.
That has absolutely fuck all to do with Title II. I'd love to see more competition in the ad market too, but removing broadband from Title II won't have any impact on that at all. And, you seem to ignore the fact that Google wasn't on the Title II bandwagon, even as folks like yourself like to pretend it was.
Mike, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts, like the old saying goes. "Chilling effect" has a particular legal definition and argumentation, and cannot simply be argued however it may be convenient like you do in this article.
That's not true. Chilling effect does not have a special legal definition and argumentation. It's just a descriptive phrase. And it was used accurately and appropriately here.
While correctly argued in your opinions of Trump's libel threats, you've also erred trying to mangle it to cover pretty much any 100%-First-Amendment-protected stated counterpoints to media reports ("attacking") or any (B.S.?) claims of negative business performance that politicians may make.
What did I get wrong? You say that I'm wrong, but you don't say how. I never said that Trump was not allowed to say what he said, I pointed out why it was scary and dangerous that he was literally lying about publicly traded companies, something that could adversely impact shareholders. That's crazy for a President or President-elect to do -- and that's why I was concerned -- accurately -- about the chilling effects of Trump's statements.
You don't explain why they are wrong. You just disagree.
here you somehow manage to come off as a unfactual whiny hack*
What facts did I get wrong?
apparent majority of TD commenters *
Uh, it's a very small minority of commenters claiming that, and they're wrong. What we write about has remained perfectly consistent.
perhaps in line with the TD swear word increase
Similarly, there has been no swear word increase. So, nope.
With regard to Snowden. If he was doing this because he is a patriot, he should come home and defend his actions. During the Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsburg released classified material, and stayed to defend his actions. He stood trial for his crimes - which carried a sentence of 115 years in prison - the charges were ultimately dismissed.
Someone else already pointed out that the Espionage Act doesn't allow Snowden to defend his actions. You bring up Ellsberg -- you should know that he attempted a whistleblower defense and the DOJ objected, and the court agreed, refusing to allow Ellsberg to even mention his reasons.
The dismissal of his case was NOT because he was able to defend his reasons. It was because the government then illegally spied on him and broke into his psychiatrist's office to look at Ellsberg's medical records. The case was dismissed because of gross misconduct by the US government in bringing the case, not because of Ellsberg's defense
David, you need to screw your hand on straight. If I have never been convicted of a crime, it stands to reason that I cannot be pardoned for a crime I have not been convicted on. Requesting that I be pardoned for a crime I haven't been convicted of is ridiculous on its face.
I see you did not even read the article, huh? In it, I note that yes, you can be pardoned pre-conviction. The Supreme Court has said so. Lots of people are pointing to Ford's Nixon pardon as well. But in the article above I also note that Obama himself pardoned some people earlier this year who had not been convicted yet.
Right off the bat, before the story can even be read the OPINION of the author is expressed.
Yes. This is an opinion site. We state opinions.
What's the problem now?
Instead, Trump supporters (and Clinton non-supporters), will just dismiss this as another attack piece. They'll never read your content and their (legitimate) distrust of the mainstream media will grow.
Wait. It's my responsibility that some people live in such a closed bubble they refuse to read anything that doesn't already meet their preconceived notions? Fuck that. I'm not here to coddle people. I'm here to state my opinion.
It's inflammatory and therefore draws eyeballs to advertising.
That's not why we do it. We do it because that's what we've always done. We state opinions. Have been for almost 20 years.
I was under the impression that StackCommerce always got to push whatever they felt like. Is there actually a review process, or does all stuff just get approved automatically?
Stack runs the store and decides what goes in there, and they send us the daily deals, which we then post to the blog. Since we control the blog, we can obviously refuse to post the ones that show up here. And we've turned down a few of them in the past. Not very often. But sometimes. This one we should have realized was problematic, but didn't. So it got posted on the regular schedule.
Yup. You guys are all right. This deal never should have been offered on the site and we're talking to Stack about this now. We should have caught this earlier, but did not. But for now we're no longer promoting it on the site. Really sorry about this. We shouldn't have let it happen, but it did. We'll try to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.