btr1701’s Techdirt Profile

btr1701

About btr1701




btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 18th, 2020 @ 3:29pm

    Re: Re:

    people obeying those rules as much as possible

    3000 people jammed into Hollywood & Highland, both masked and unmasked, is by definition, not obeying the rules at all.

    Or L.A. Mayor Garcetti, whose authoritarian streak seems to have completely evaporated. Three weeks ago, he was johnny-on-the-spot to send in the cops to arrest a dad for playing softball with his six-year-old daughter, or a guy for paddle-boarding in the ocean, or to shut down a church that was daring to engage in worship. This is a guy who acted like a few people sunning themselves on a wide-open beach was the equivalent of a WMD. Now, when half his city is smashed, looted, and burned, and thousands of disease vectors are smashed shoulder-to-shoulder in the streets, he muzzles the cops and says restraint is the word of the day.

    Garcetti knelt and exchanged hugs with hundreds of protesters-- most unmasked-- after outlawing church congregations from praying together, even outdoors and/or inside their cars. The media says nothing about it other than to rhapsodize over how 'moving' it was. We now conclusively know that the government and media hysterics of the past three months were a giant sham.

    The media were calling a couple hundred people protesting on the strand in Huntington Beach "terrorists" and the CA nurses association said they were "grandma killers".

    No one in the media called the Floyd crowds terrorists-- despite a not insignificant number of them actually terrorizing people. And the nurses association? Were they appalled at all the grandma-killers flooding the streets? Nope. They cheered them on and endorsed them.

    Apparently grandma isn't as important as we were led to believe.

    and is for a far higher cause

    'Cause a virus knows how righteous and woke you are.

    Also there's a lot more people involved in them than there were in the idiot one.

    Which is exactly why they were far more dangerous to public health.

  • Jun 18th, 2020 @ 1:17am

    Re: Disregarding the Constitution in case of emergency

    So how did torture program without due process fly?

    I don't believe that was done under a declaration of emergency.

  • Jun 17th, 2020 @ 12:56pm

    Re:

    How lenient do you believe the cops would’ve been towards those armed protestors if most of them had been Black people instead of White people?

    Well, considering we have armed black people patrolling the border of CHAZ right now, carrying weapons that actually do violate the laws of the state of Washington, and the cops aren't doing anything about it, I'd say pretty lenient.

  • Jun 17th, 2020 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Me not wearing a seatbelt while driving my car does not endanger anyone but me.

  • Jun 17th, 2020 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: obvious reason it's invalid

    ...and until SCOTUS makes a ruling to the contrary the emergency powers clause will stand. I
    believe that's how it works.

    The Supreme Court has ruled:

    "Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of emergency." --ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

  • Jun 17th, 2020 @ 12:43pm

    Re:

    Censorship is someone saying “you can’t do that anywhere”

    If that was the operable definition of censorship, then there'd be no censorship anywhere, because even when the government cracks censors something, a person could still say that thing somewhere in the world.

  • Jun 17th, 2020 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    But, you apparently are arguing that they should be able to be sanctioned for it,

    <facepalm> No, I clearly said the exact opposite. I have no idea how to make it any more clear.

  • Jun 17th, 2020 @ 11:41am

    (untitled comment)

    Note how this is framed -- as if removing disinformation or recommendations that will likely lead to people dying due to ignoring health advice regarding COVID-19 is somehow a bad thing.

    Fast-forward several weeks and suddenly Facebook isn't concerned at all about removing protest information anymore, even though the Floyd protests are 1000 times the disease-spreading vectors that the anti-lockdown protests were.

    The difference? Facebook likes the Floyd protests. They're woke and righteous, so they get to stay up despite being much more dangerous to public health than the anti-lockdown protests were.

    Facebook can legally do this, of course, but stop pretending they don't have a bias and that their censorship of the lockdown protest info was all based on a genuine concern for public health. 'Cause that's a lie.

  • May 19th, 2020 @ 2:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'll ask the same question your type has never been able to answer - what is the magic size a company has to be before it loses its rights?

    That would be determined by a court. The same way they figured out what the magic size the phone company had to become before it was broken up by the judiciary for the good of the country.

    Also, do they regain those rights once they get smaller?

    Probably. It would depend on their ability to influence the political process of the nation.

    For the life of me I'll never understand why your type clutch their pearls and run for the fainting couch over "Russian interference" that turned out to have zero measurable influence on the actual election, but you seem bizarrely sanguine with the monolithic sway a handful of unelected tech overlords in Silicon Valley have over the country's public discourse and political communications.

  • May 19th, 2020 @ 2:20am

    Re:

    The government doesn’t hold responsible the companies that sell mobile phones and mobile phone service when someone uses a mobile phone to facilitate criminal acts.

    No kidding. That's why I said Google would find it outrageous if the government did do that.

    Not punishing the platform for its censorship choices.

    I can’t believe I have to repost this again so soon, but... moderation is a platform operator saying “we don’t do that here”.

    No kidding. That's why I said my example was NOT-- note the word "not"-- not the government punishing Google for its platform censorship choices.

    As for your self-serving definition of censorship, the actual definition from the dictionary I pulled down off my shelf just now is NOT -- note the word "not"-- "you can't do that anywhere", as you claimed. It reads: "The practice of examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts, usually but not always done by government officials". That fits Google's behavior.

    Yours haven’t become that standard, either. Don’t act like it.

    Never said they were and I'm not. I only ever spoke for myself and I was exceedingly clear about that.

    makes no sense when you consider the law instead of your personal moral righteousness.

    But I WASN'T considering the law. I acknowledged that the law allows for Google's behavior here. All I was considering was the morality of the situation and I consider their actions immoral. You may not. That's great. But you're no more 'correct' on the morality issue than I am. Each of us can have different beliefs on what is right and wrong with regard to this issue independent of what the law says about it.

    I'm not arguing that Google can be legally sanctioned for its censorship

    You do sound as if you think it should be legally sanctioned for its moderation decisions

    Well, buddy, I don't know what to tell you. I clearly and unambiguously stated that I acknowledged the law was on Google's side here. I don't know what else I can do. If me saying straight up that Google can't be sanctioned legally for its behavior and you still somehow think that means I'm saying the exact opposite of the words I type, then the problem lies with you and your ability to comprehend plain English.

    Last time I checked, the United States has a law about interactive web services, moderation decisions, and the legality thereof. We refer to it as “Section 230”.

    No shit. Once more for the cheap seats:

    I'M NOT ARGUING THAT GOOGLE CAN BE LEGALLY SANCTIONED FOR ITS CENSORSHIP. THE LAW IS ON THEIR SIDE.

    Maybe the all-caps will enable it to penetrate your skull and we can dispense with the condescending little lessons about what "we" refer to the law as.

    Your ignorance, real or willful, of the laws surrounding moderation decisions and legal liability makes you “clueless”.

    Holy fucking balls, what is it with you? I said-- for the fourth time now-- I know and acknowledge what the law says and how it allows for Google's actions.

    Someone here is certainly clueless and it ain't me.

  • May 18th, 2020 @ 7:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is a nonsensical statement. There is nothing to respond to because it means nothing.

    That's simply not true. It's not nonsensical at all and it clearly does mean exactly what I said.

    It could, but why would it?

    Money, power, who knows? Not sure why the government's motivation matters here. It's a hypothetical.

    And what does that have to do with the question at hand?

    It was an analogy.

    Actually, the 1st Amendment would likely invalidate much of that law if it involved punishing a platform for choices it made about what speech it allowed on its own platform.

    Which isn't the scenario I posited. I said the government could hold Google legally liable for people who misuse its products, like committing a crime by calling in a bomb threat or running a credit card fraud scheme. Not punishing the platform for its censorship choices.

    You have every right to kick an asshole out of your house, don't you? Then why is it immoral for a private company to kick an asshole out of its property?

    The great thing about morals is that, unlike the law, everyone has their own and yours are not the objective standard by which all others are judged. My kitchen hasn't become a de facto town square the way the social media giants have. Acting as if the two are equivalent is what's truly nonsensical here and it's not 'clueless' to factor that into one's moral beliefs.

    I understand what the law says and I'm not arguing that Google can be legally sanctioned for its censorship, but I can hold the opinion that their actions are nevertheless immoral and that doesn't make me 'clueless' merely because it doesn't line up with your own personal beliefs.

  • May 18th, 2020 @ 5:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I bet they'd scream like a scalded cat if the government tried to do that to them, but they have no problem holding others to that standard.

    Yes, but again, government and private company are two very different things.

    They're only two different things with regard to constitutional law. It's not different when it comes to basic issues of liability (and stupidity).

    The government could hold Google legally liable for people who misuse its products. It would be stupid and unfair, but there's no constitutional prohibition that would invalidate such a law.

    And, of course, on just a basic level of morality, there is no difference between the government doing it and Google doing it. Both are equally immoral, as is Google's censorship of anything other than the party line.

  • May 18th, 2020 @ 3:09pm

    Re:

    Other media reporting on this indicates the developer is talking directly with Google, so this isn't some 'moderation at scale impossibility" thing. Google is dealing with this guy individually, which means they're making this decision about this specific guy and this specific issue.

    Beyond the massive censorship issues raised here where Google-- the most massive communication company on the planet-- won't allow any discussion of the most significant event of the last 20 years unless it has the government's stamp of approval, is that Google is making the podcast player responsible for the speech of everyone that uses it.

    That's like holding Google itself responsible if someone uses one of their phones to call in a bomb threat.

    I bet they'd scream like a scalded cat if the government tried to do that to them, but they have no problem holding others to that standard.

  • May 18th, 2020 @ 3:04pm

    Re: Re:

    Apple does that all the time and it's not illegal. I don't like it either but it's not illegal.

    It's not illegal yet because a court hasn't ruled it to be. There's a pretty good chance one would if Google was found to be censoring podcast apps for rules it doesn't adhere to with its own podcast app.

  • Apr 22nd, 2020 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Re:

    I do. Whether to wear a seatbelt or not should be my choice, not forced on me by the government.

  • Apr 22nd, 2020 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: obvious reason it's invalid

    But there no 'except in an emergency' escape clause to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. They apply all the time. Emergency or not.

  • Apr 22nd, 2020 @ 12:48pm

    Racial Bias

    Why is it that-- according to you-- minorities just throw parties, but when white people throw parties, they're exercising 'their god-given right to act as attack vectors during a pandemic'?

    Aren't they all acting as attack vectors during a pandemic? Or do only white people this disease?

  • Mar 28th, 2020 @ 6:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    CHUD, carnivorous humanoid underground dweller

    CHUDS are actually "cannibalistic humanoid underground dwellers"

  • Mar 19th, 2020 @ 2:31pm

    Re: Get the county sheriff or the state police to enforce the wr

    Um, yes.

    I've personally witnessed writs of mandamus being served by the state police on government officials.

  • Mar 19th, 2020 @ 2:04pm

    Re:

    Well aren’t you a racist bastard.

    "Chinese" isn't a race.

More comments from btr1701 >>


This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it