but so much of it is overblown fluff and nonsense, and all of the various "brand protection" companies out there feel the need to justify whatever bizarrely lucrative contracts these giant companies hand out.
On November 3, said "hacker" convinced company support they were cleared to access “certain customer support systems.”
So did the attacker take over an existing employee account and then trick a sysadmin into granting that account more privileges? Or was it something really stupid like "I have no employee account, so use Teamviewer/LogMeIn/etc to let me take over your session and use your account"?
Just as techdirt also engages in bad faith moderation, as evidenced above.
Are you implying that the registered users who flag your comments are doing so in bad faith? If so, how would laws that are meant to eliminate/reduce bad faith moderation deal with site users downvoting in bad faith? Simply get rid of downvoting, and only allow upvoting?
Or are you implying that your comments getting flagged are solely the result of actions of the admins, and that us users clicking "flag this comment" have no effect?
If something like this ends up working against Amazon, its sets a precedent that can be used against others, which is reason enough to oppose it regardless of how you feel about Amazon.
And I won't even bother responding to the idea that 230 was put in place to encourage censorship on social media when social media... didn't exist when Section 230 was put in place.
I think what they're trying to say is "the tech industry leans liberal, so any law which gives the tech industry more free reign to do as they want will negatively affect conservatives". (Not agreeing with them, just trying to untangle their words)
I personally believe that you ought to be allowed such a thing, as long as you post that rule up front, and you have equal enforcement. If there is unequal enforcement, however, that should be a cause for action.
What if someone thinks there was unequal enforcement, sues, loses because there wasn't any, and the forum has to eat the cost even though they won in court? People hosting forums would be reluctant to moderate when such a thing could happen.
Desecrating a BLM logo isn't in-of-itself a hate crime in the U.S. There are laws making it if something is already a crime then punishment can be enhanced if it can be shown that the crime was motivated by hatred of a race/religion/etc. Depending on the circumstances of a crime, desecrating a BLM logo might be entered as evidence that the crime was motivated by hatred of blacks. But if you own a BLM logo and desecreate it then that, in-and-of-itself, is perfectly legal (assuming you don't, for example, burn it in a manner that violates a fire-safety law).
The problem is Powell offered three defenses in her motion to dismiss the defamation case: 1) opinion based on disclosed fact, 2) matter of opinion (something that can be proven neither true nor false in a court of law), and 3) that no reasonable person would believe what she said to be statements of fact. While opinion based on disclosed facts is something that perfectly fine for a lawyer to put into a legal filing submitted to the court, the other two things aren't.
I'm kind of surprised that no die-hard Trump supporters have claimed that Powell's stupid antics aren't really stupid antics but instead a clever ruse, and that by deeming them stupid antics we're falling for her ruse hook, line and sinker.
Then shouldn't such a tax be distributed amongst Internet companies in general, including ISPs and the makers of smart phones, rather than just companies which
[operate] a website or other online service that displays, distributes, or directs users to news articles, works of journalism, or other content on the internet that is generated by third-party news content creators [and] has not fewer than 1,000,000,000 monthly active users, in the aggregate, of all of its websites or online services worldwide.
For the sake of the argument, let's say that journalism won't be able to survive without being subsidized and that the government should do the subsidizing:
why should that be done via link taxes?
According to the govt, it's not a violation of the 4th Amendment because it's the property that's accused of the crime, not the property's owner, and property doesn't have any rights. Why it doesn't violate the 5th Amendment's "nor be deprived of .. property without due process of law" I don't know.
If was obtained via an illegal search, it should be suppressed, even if there's no expectation of privacy in messages he sent to someone else.
IANAL, but my understanding of U.S. law is if your rights are violated in obtaining some piece of evidence then that evidence can't be used against you, but it can be used against other people because their rights weren't violated.
"How were we supposed to know that the right to petition for redress of grievances was protected by the 1st amendment!"
Like that's going to stop him.
Hey, gotta generate those billable hours somehow.
So did the attacker take over an existing employee account and then trick a sysadmin into granting that account more privileges? Or was it something really stupid like "I have no employee account, so use Teamviewer/LogMeIn/etc to let me take over your session and use your account"?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But They're Doing It Too!
Re: Re: Re: But They're Doing It Too!
Nelk Boys: "The copyright claims were just a prank, bro."
Re:
If something like this ends up working against Amazon, its sets a precedent that can be used against others, which is reason enough to oppose it regardless of how you feel about Amazon.
DC Appeals Court Affirms Sidelining Of Attorney Larry Klayman, Who Attempted To 'Change Sides' In Litigation
Is that the article in question?
I think what they're trying to say is "the tech industry leans liberal, so any law which gives the tech industry more free reign to do as they want will negatively affect conservatives". (Not agreeing with them, just trying to untangle their words)
Re: Re: Re: Glad To Help
Re:
Desecrating a BLM logo isn't in-of-itself a hate crime in the U.S. There are laws making it if something is already a crime then punishment can be enhanced if it can be shown that the crime was motivated by hatred of a race/religion/etc. Depending on the circumstances of a crime, desecrating a BLM logo might be entered as evidence that the crime was motivated by hatred of blacks. But if you own a BLM logo and desecreate it then that, in-and-of-itself, is perfectly legal (assuming you don't, for example, burn it in a manner that violates a fire-safety law).
Re:
The problem is Powell offered three defenses in her motion to dismiss the defamation case: 1) opinion based on disclosed fact, 2) matter of opinion (something that can be proven neither true nor false in a court of law), and 3) that no reasonable person would believe what she said to be statements of fact. While opinion based on disclosed facts is something that perfectly fine for a lawyer to put into a legal filing submitted to the court, the other two things aren't.
Re: Errors
Even Trump appointed judges were unimpressed with the legal filings arguing fraud. But I dunno, maybe those Trump appointed judges had TDS as well...
Re: she's snapped
I'm kind of surprised that no die-hard Trump supporters have claimed that Powell's stupid antics aren't really stupid antics but instead a clever ruse, and that by deeming them stupid antics we're falling for her ruse hook, line and sinker.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then shouldn't such a tax be distributed amongst Internet companies in general, including ISPs and the makers of smart phones, rather than just companies which
Re:
For the sake of the argument, let's say that journalism won't be able to survive without being subsidized and that the government should do the subsidizing: why should that be done via link taxes?
Re: Re:
According to the govt, it's not a violation of the 4th Amendment because it's the property that's accused of the crime, not the property's owner, and property doesn't have any rights. Why it doesn't violate the 5th Amendment's "nor be deprived of .. property without due process of law" I don't know.
IANAL, but my understanding of U.S. law is if your rights are violated in obtaining some piece of evidence then that evidence can't be used against you, but it can be used against other people because their rights weren't violated.