Nope more 403, doesn't matter I;m not addicted, just seems a little silly on the very spot that shames people with sign up walls and pay walls................
Definitely not our doing. The podcast is out there and freely available. Did you try grabbing it from the RSS feed directly? Or just using the RSS feed to subscribe via any podcasting app? https://www.techdirt.com/podcast.xml
All anyone in Hillarys campaign would have to do is use a VPN when accessing the trump campaign website, problem solved. Just use a VPN that keeps no logs, then just run KillDisk on the hard disk of that computer to erase any evidence of what happened.
Nope. Power.com specifically routed around it by changing IPs when Facebook blocked its original IP. Same would likely apply here.
Please get a law degree then try again. The First Amendment has a lot of exceptions which deal with breaking laws. It is not a license to say or do whatever you want -- including shouting fire in a crowded auditorium.
What is the difference between Facebook blocking who it doesn't like and trying to build their own network in India?
There's a big difference in internet *access* services, and internet *hosting* services, where anyone can host their content elsewhere.
Access services are regulated for good reasons. Hosting is not.
Now, Facebook is filtering who they don't like off their network. Yes, there are other ways of communicating but it is difficult, if not impossible, to get everyone you communicate with to switch to another provider. Look at how Google+ failed, and that was with Google behind it.
You're confusing a number of different issues. Again you need to separate out internet access from other kinds of service, and that's because your options for internet access are massively limited and if you can't get basic internet access, you lose out on a ton of services. If you can't access Facebook, what do you really lose out on?
What is the difference between what they tried to do in India and what they are doing now? They are trying to lock people out if they don't use Facebook the way Facebook wants you to. The end result is them still trying to control and restrict people's speech.
With zero rating, they were setting up a system whereby they only allow access to certain companies. That unfairly balances the internet towards certain companies. That's not what they're doing when they remove content ON THEIR OWN SERVERS that violate their terms of service.
Psst, hey Masnick, zip up your mouth, your politics are showing.
They're not actually. Your insult, however, suggests yours are.
While you may find fault in Geller's attorney what laws they're citing and in how they're arguing it, the fact that Facebook can arbitrarily ban a person's Facebook account with little to no recourse, and then have that ban extend to sites like USA Today, which uses Facebook comments, really smacks of Facebook denying a person's freedom of speech far outside of Facebook's official pages...
A person's freedom of speech is only vis a vis the government. Not a private company. So, no. You're wrong. Really wrong.
But add on top of that, the fact that what actions a person my engage in that Facebook chooses as a reason for banning that user are heavily influenced by governments both inside and outside of the US.
Doesn't matter. You're wrong. The First Amendment is not an issue here. Section 230 is not an issue here. Facebook has every right to take down whatever content it wants.
You may not like it. I *DON'T* like that Facebook is so arbitrary about what it pulls down -- as has been detailed on these very pages many times. But it has every right to do so, and Geller's lawsuit is incredibly dumb.
Once again the real question is can the MPD actually hold copyright on anything? It is a government agency; is there some distinction in Minnesota that allows them to hold copyright?
Federal copyright law's exemption on gov't works technically only applies to the federal government. Many believe that state works should similarly be exempt from copyright, but the law does not say that. Unfortunately.
is there an overall guideline on state-related agencies and their ability to produce3 copyrighted materials?
Actually, I just discovered this resource today from Harvard:
So why does Wyden focus so strongly on preaching to the choir? Not that it isn't appreciated at times, but it's clearly not enough and has almost never been enough to do much of anything politically on its own. Net Neutrality is the only substantive victory I can think of. I don't count SOPA/PIPA as that would've gone nowhere without Google and Wikipedia joining in.
Almost everything above is wrong.
1. Wyden does not just "preach to the choir." He talks to all sorts of folks. But part of getting a message out on an important issue is talking to people who will understand why these things are important.
3. Wyden has accomplished a ton. Perhaps you're not looking very hard at his accomplishments, but they go way beyond net neutrality -- which he had very little to do with actually (so that's a weird example). He's the reason we have Section 230 of the CDA. He's accomplished things on trade. He's accomplished things on surveillance as well, even if sometimes it doesn't feel like it (he's blocked a ton of awful proposals and helped push some parts in the right direction).
4. And you're out of your mind if you think he wasn't a key driving force behind stopping SOPA/PIPA. Having spent a ton of time on that issue, I know that without his help it would be law today.
Your awesome new business model is really stickin' it to those legacy bastards who refuse to adapt. #livinlarge
It's neither new, nor "stickin' it" to anyone, nor have I ever said that anyone should do either of those things.
I think you're confusing (on purpose or out of ignorance?) my repeated suggestions that those who are *failing* to make money by relying on old systems to try alternative business models. In fact, we've always mentioned merchandise as one such business model. The whole point is to leverage what's working (abundance) and selling scarcities (such as products).
And, even then your point makes no sense. We're actually leveraging some cool internet services in the form of crowdfunding and campaign management to run this campaign.
So. Yeah. Your point just makes you look like a complete idiot. But, no surprise. No wonder you no longer log in. Tired of people calling out your shit or working out who really pays your bills?
Ads and t-shirts. You're livin' the dream, Mike! #crushingit
Odd. So you're making fun of the fact that we're actually making money? I'm not sure what point you think you're proving unless you've totally misread everything we've basically ever written (which seems likely).