First they came for the fake news and I said nothing.
Bing, Windows live messenger, Outlook.
Are these some upcoming unannounced products to which you have inside information?
Yes, all sites are biased.
Let's not confuse bias with fake news, manufactured facts, distortions that stretch beyond any sane boundaries of 'spin', and just plain outright lies. Those things do not rise to and are undeserving of the word 'bias'.
Unlike older bogeymen words such as 'communism', the word 'terrorism' is the magical incantation which can be re-defined to mean whatever the government wants it to mean at the moment. A single word with both 'flexibility' and 'expandability' built right in. So upgrade your 'communist' to 'terrorist' today!
. . . because he is inspired by their superior intelligence and wisdom.
So content is censored based on a hash. Each company can submit a hash of something to be censored, and the others will comply with blocking it. Even though the other companies do not know exactly what is being blocked.
Now all the government has to do is coerce or manipulate Company A into censoring things that should never be censored, and Company B, C, etc will all happily censor it without having any idea what they are censoring.
Similarly Hollywood could coerce or manipulate the censorship of content without need of the Digital Millennium Censorship Act (DMCA).
Next in line will be politicians with thin skin, but I'm being redundant. Local police and sheriffs with thin skin. Rich people who want to avoid the Streisand Effect.
Next will be corporations which want to censor competitors, or viewpoints which are against their profitability. Maybe corporations want to tax us for clean air and water because it costs actual money to avoid polluting the air and ware, and thus is unprofitable. People should have to pay. You don't think clean air grows on trees do you?
More and more people will get in line to add things to the magic censorship list of hashes.
What could possibly go wrong?
There is a problem however. Trump may want to modernize the US nuclear launch system for the 21st century, making it possible to give launch orders via Twitter. But what if twitter is blocking him?
History does not affect this quarter's profits. Therefore history is unimportant. History might affect things negatively in the long term. But why should anyone in charge of a large organization care about the long term survival of that organization?
One person's terrorist is another person's national leader.
Think about that for a second. It applies to nations that we, in the US, consider to actually have terrorist leaders.
When I read about this last week, one of the things I seem to remember was that some warrants incorrectly seemed active, because the warrant had been quashed during the time of the data migration to the new system.
On a system this large, and this important, how could you NOT have a migration path that would account for this?
Yes, the errors are all in one direction.
But it is a quick fix until the education system can catch up and do its job.
The education system is supposed to produce a certain percent of graduates that are destined to keep the 'for profit' prisons full. The remaining graduates must be just employable enough to pay taxes to operate the for profit prisons.
If efforts to keep seized phones alive until a search
> warrant arrives (or: novel idea -- get one first!)
That sounds to me like they don't have a search warrant first.
So the police will mug someone, steal their phone, and search through it to "keep it alive" until the presumed warrant arrives. But what if the warrant doesn't arrive? Is this assault and battery by the police?
What happens if the victim of the mugging, or one of their friends, uses deadly force against one of these muggers only later to discover they are the police?
One other observation: The police seem to wonder why they have a problem with the public not trusting them.
Isn't the new first lady going to eliminate cyberbullying in all US states which surely must be intended to include the UK, the EU and other unpronouncable polygons on the globe?
Won't Fix. Software working as intended.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Use Case: Our 'for profit' prisons need to maintain fewest possible vacant cells. More prisoners means more revenue, higher profits, executive bonuses, and greater shareholder value, and thus it's good for 'everyone'. Those are are wrongly arrested due to 'errors' are generally released in a very short time, so no harm is done.
Issue ticket closed.
The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it.
Just wait until this bites the right hands who can fight it.
In an effort to make a bad law worse, Hollywood may just well be instrumental in getting it overturned.
Probably everyone has seen the joke memo that introduces company wide password requirements. Then adds more and more restrictions. Then goes over the top until it starts reducing the number of possible passwords. Finally only one possible password exists. Everyone is to start using this secure password at once. Managers will distribute it to their direct reports.
That is a good point.
Disney can afford to automate the continued re-re-registering and at scale.
Fighting for constitutional rights shouldn't seem like a progressive cause.
But it does seem that way because we've slid so far downhill.
Whether we can recover the rights and freedoms we've lost remains to be seen.
Yes. That. It reminds me of some saying about the goose and the gander having compatible ports without need of a special adapter, or something like that.
Proper use of trademark
When I say that it is my considered opinion that Microsoft Windows 10 is a steaming pile of horse excrement with a fresh glazed topping of putrid festering goat vomit, that is not misusing or tarnishing the trademark.
As for misuse, the way I used it is intended to communicate EXACTLY and PRECISELY what company and product I am expressing an opinion about.
As for tarnishing, what I stated was an opinion, it may differ from some people's, but is in agreement with many other people's opinion. Feel free to form and express your own opinion in agreement or disagreement.