My understanding is that British Summer Time is not the same as Greenwich Mean Time; GMT does not follow DST so GMT and UTC are effectively interchangeable. Which I suppose would mean, from your perspective, that there's no reason to use GMT at all.
They are members of the in-group, they should get to say whatever they want. Journalists and marginalized groups are part of the out-group, they should not get to say anything the in-group doesn't like. You can't get them to see the hypocrisy because at base level, the only thing that matters is whether the in-group is being bound or the out-group is being protected.
Also, from what I understand old-fashioned letters to the editor at local newspapers are still surprisingly effective at reaching congresscritters, maybe even more so than sending messages directly to them, at least if they get published.
What might help the most is to try to find some suicide prevention/"think of the children" groups that can be convinced that the bill could actually hurt children and can be galvanized to organize against it.
And of course, it took a freaking war to get the Thirteenth Amendment passed...
And they wonder why they struggle to win elections against waves at entire modern Republican Party...
But, of course, almost no one wants to speak out against KOSA, because the media and politicians trot out parents who went through a truly traumatic experience, and no one wants to be seen as the person who is said to be standing in the way of that. But the simple fact is that KOSA will not magically prevent suicides. It might actually lead to more.Seems like it should be simple enough to warn about KOSA potentially leading to more suicides rather than less? But of course, the problem isn't just the media's tendency for emotional appeals, but its almost willful cluelessness about the Internet and refusal to platform voices that know anything about it, almost like what they're really trying to do is tear down or subvert the technology that broke their twentieth-century business models...
Masnick makes an appearance presenting the top-comments post! I suppose with how "special" this week has been...
To be fair, you assume they know anything whatsoever about Google and the Internet other than "Google bad".
At this point, I wonder if this ends with Musk saying that yes, he really didn't understand what he was signing, he would have been a fool and an idiot, or else not in his right mind, to sign it if he did, and that since he either didn't sign what he thought he was signing or wasn't fit to soberly and informedly sign it, the whole thing should be nullified. Elon gets out of the deal, Twitter gets out of being run by him and his weird ideas of how to run it (remember those?), Twitter shareholders don't get their $54.20 but don't have to worry about anything being wrong with the company that Elon could present as the reason for cancelling the sale and can tell themselves the whole thing happened because of how mercurial Elon is and nothing having to do with the value of the company itself, everyone wins. The only thing it would cost Elon is anyone having any trust in him being able to competently, rationally, and consistently run a company, anticipate the consequences of his actions, or avoid being taken advantage of by any potential business partners, ever again.
Of course, the people with the real power in society either actually want hate movements to exist, or at least consider them an acceptable alternative to people being able to actually stand up to them. Keep them busy blaming the Jews, darkies, and bitches and they won't be blaming the people that's really to blame for their plight.
Being trans has been called a mental health disorder, and this bill says platforms are required to protect minors from that.Excuse me? The bill says platforms are required to protect children from "mental health disorders"? The best possible interpretation I have of this sentence is that they're required to protect children from people with mental disorders, and that still says some bad things about how we treat mental health in this country.
Here's the thing, though. Yes, in terms of creating original content, HBO should have focused on one or two series at a time and focused on making those things as good as possible. But quantity of content has been the bread and butter of streaming services ever since people started noticing that Netflix offered so much content they didn't really need a subscription to cable TV. People come for the premium original content but they stay for the tonnage of library content you have to offer, and considering the pricing structure most of these streaming services have the latter is arguably more important. Having a bunch of crap doesn't have to distract from the gems in your library if you have a good algorithm that leads people to the gems. So for HBO to dump old episodes of Sesame Street and a bunch of other shows feels penny wise and pound foolish. It objectively makes the service worse. HBO was the thing that Netflix famously tried to become before HBO could become Netflix, and part of that was their critically-acclaimed original content, but part of it was also their library of movies from multiple sources. HBO was the place other studios sold to, Warner Bros wasn't the one selling to others, yet that's now the direction WBD seems to be moving in. I thought Warner Bros was better positioned than any legacy media company not named Disney for the streaming era, but they seem to be throwing that away. It's now very possible Peacock or Paramount+ outlives any incarnation of HBO Max, and if that's the case the WarnerMedia-Discovery merger could go down as one of the most catastrophic in media if not business history. As incompetent as AT&T were in running WarnerMedia, they might actually be in worse shape now.
Why Is Media Lamenting Disney’s ‘Loss’ Of Copyright Instead Of Celebrating The Public Domain?Well, how many of those media outlets are owned by companies that get to lock up intellectual property indefinitely as long as Disney gets to keep extending copyright terms? That might be your answer.
I can't wait to see Democrats flood everyone's inbox multiple times a day and see how long Republican support for this lasts...
maybe it would be beneficial to step back a little, and refocus on the fact that US is already terribly behind EU on big tech regulation.Or looked at another way, the EU is behind the US on not over-reaching and producing counterproductive outcomes in regulating tech.
I wonder whether Oliver's employer backs these bills...
I don't want to think Democrats secretly want Republicans to win because fascism is perceived to be better for their true bosses than actually working for ordinary people, but they don't make it easy sometimes.
Or they could have just calculated the percentages for each paper because that would be the more interesting and relevant number than "stories that treat the impacts of 230 negatively in the Wall Street Journal as a percentage of stories talking about the impact of 230 across both papers".
Ah, so that's where they got the idea for how copyright law should be rigged in their favor!