I mean, If I were a defendant, I'd at least try to sue the state and get him removed from the case... I mean... is that possible? Has it been tried? If nothing else, it would be a hell of a publicity stunt to call this guy out for his blatant pandering
Staying connected to their loved ones can help a person transition back into society easier, there are benefits and studies that support this view. But if we start letting them actually have friends and family that aren't incarcerated, they might not come back to prison! And then how is Securus and these private prisons supposed to make their money! How dare you give them free phone calls! Think of the capitalism!
So... if you or I make a video and use video manipulation, it is a 'danger to society'. But if Hollywood does it, it is entertainment. I don't know about you, but Michael Bay makes it look really good when he's blowing stuff up. How am I supposed to tell the difference between that and 'real life'!
So... rawr rawr rawr... think of the children! Ban video editing software! /s
Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
A perfect example of reallocating public safety dollars. Better outcomes, better community engagement. Everyone wins!
So I wonder if links to url shorteners will be a thing to circumvent this, and if then the news media will say because a user made a redirect link on a 3rd party site, that then was used on facebook... facebook owes me money!
grabs popcorn this is about to get interesting folks!
So, we could pay a company that has promise, is geographically diverse, and would force innovation, or we could give the same amount of money to Charter/Verizon/Frontier to do... checks notes... promise the world and do nothing after taking the money.
Having an option in a rural area is amazing. If the subsidies help speed things up, or, at least give less to these grift-taking monopolies, I say Godspeed.
Just because it isn't optimal, no one is offering any other alternatives. Him being rich shouldn't have anything to do with the conversation.
"How dare he be competent and take money from the incompetent telcos that refuse to honor their commitments!" /s
Once the publishers get Google and Facebook to pay... then they make small businesses pay for links, then it kills the free and open web.
These politicians are willfully ignorant of how the internet works and should be voted out. Unfortunately, being a jerk to 'big tech' is in vogue right now, so good luck with that...
So a secret list, using secret algorithms, to predict criminals are sent to law enforcement for... reasons?
This is a blatant attempt to 'catch them' before they create 'bigger crimes', which just means they have a target on their back and that when these kids are flagged in the future for a routine traffic stop, they'll be imprisoned because they are on a 'list'
I also love the words that are used "destined to a life of crime", "potential offenders"... it shows me that these callous cops are not trying to intervene and help these children, they are just looking for an easy mark to justify their existence.
God forbid they actually befriend these kids, involve themselves into the lives of their community members, offer them internships, a soccer league, or you know... a counselor or therapy. Nope. Better just harass their families for no reason. That is a heck of a lot easier.
Am I the only person in the world who is a functioning adult and spent almost every waking, breathing moment in my formative years (6-12th grade) in front of a computer or a console?
I read today that Facebook was selling ads for military gear next to extremist content.
I also read this and yes, the dude was off his rocker. It read like the same protectionist crap that I've seen from other journalism outlets that are mad that they have lost their space in the world and are mad that they have to compete with average, everyday people having a voice.
Pretty much the article for everyone else who hasn't read it:
"How dare people be able to share information that is not vetted by an editor on the internet!"
"How dare people be given a platform to promote themselves in a singular place! Back in my day they'd have built their own website for that!"
"How dare facebook/youtube be big! They should do more to get rid of content I don't like!"
"Lets completely sidestep the fact that Section 230 protects big and small businesses and just focus on 3 companies that I don't like!"
I love how these 'pre-crime algorithms' aren't used to help intervene and change the lives of these individuals, but it is a foregone conclusion that they are beyond help and must be watched eagle-eye style until they screw up. Then the idiots who use this technology pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
But you know... gotta keep that school to prison pipeline going to justify their jobs and 50% of a city's budget
Guess I can't make my Nazis vs Confederates movie, can't get the props anymore
I think the playing field for content producers (ABC, Sports Networks, Comcast) have all been diminished in this next round of fights. Back in the good ol' days of cable, you bought a package with a 'number' of channels and each package you had to pick your package to find the 10 channels you actually watched... Nowadays, the channel concept is dead. You just get what 'Hulu' has or what 'Netflix' has. Getting rid of the channels concept really helps put the power into the content provider. If ABC, Sports Network X, or whoever else wants to start their own streaming channel and charge $25 a person for the privilege, nothing stops them...
So I lose access to XYZ show, meh... there's more than enough content to make up for it... and if there isn't, then we cancel that particular provider and move (because no more contract shenanigans!)
On the Roku side of the house however... that is literally extortion like the good old days and the only loser is the user. Taking away a platform that a user already had access to is a complete jerk move. Just tells me I don't want to buy into their products
Can this just hurry up and be a tv show already? There's enough juicy twists and turns for at least of couple of seasons. Better Call Saul has nothing on this!