You god people can be quite funny.
If the point was there are “good” Christians I’ll go along with that. Setians are some of the better natural disaster donators too. Plenty of Islamic and Hindu charities that actually spend money on the cause and not the faith.
Yes, you can find one good one. Maybe that’s why “god” hasn’t sent a volcanic eruption to wipe you all out S&G style yet?!
What’s funny is the article title and focus is on TikTok. Lmao. What’s the company’s user base. How many and what percentage of global internet streaming users.
I’m talking active users, not one time or one day users. 2 billion downloads is an impressive number out of context. Despite a few hundred million users claimed in the last Neilson report on it I read.
However replace TikTok with generic-name and the rest is suddenly correct.
The era of time based viewing is over. Especially in the US.
Roughly half the prime time viewership watchers the same 6 stations M-F.
The political commentary shows of FoxNews, MSNBC, and CNN make up the majority of that.
Pro wrestling, boxing, and cage/mma fighting take another large daily chunk.
Thing is all of that can be watched streaming too.
Network prime time and classical sports viewership is way down.
Here’s a state sports wise. Prime is roughly $100 per year. Discovery+, Peacock, AppleTV; all about $100 per year or less.
Motor trend $5mo
MLS included in future
Peacock; live and on demand sports. WWE and independent wrestling
NWA is $6.99mo
Fightful from $8.99
Discovery+ gives you tennis, golf,
Let’s not forget premium YouTube.
The only thing that keeps telco giants alive right now is easy billing.
Many simply like the single bill and willingly (or semi-) pay for the convince. The last big cord cut came in the housing recession. I expect another one soon with our economy in turmoil.
And in areas with more than one carrier $75/month gigabit level internet (750-1500mbps) is fairly common.
The final cable death scream will come when 5Ghs antennas reach saturation.
Unlikely the final price but testing of 5G hot-box lines from $15.99-$49.99 are being trialed.
It’s not TikTok that will kill cable. Not a chance. High speed wireless, however, very well could do it!
Private censorship by a non-governmental agency is legal. Always has been and always will be.
Forcing presence where you are not wanted is a violation of property rights. People like this are no better than the stupid liberal protestors who barge into conservative conferences.
Go somewhere else. By your own definition the company has failed in it’s perceived duty to host multiple voices. Go to a superior site that allows you to speak. If what the company has done is so egregious as to prompt a lawsuits from you, why would you want to be associated with such a failure of communication?
One in which some portion less that the entirety is publicly. The remaining private or invite only.
You have it right, a walled garden. Though I’m not sure the likely intended targets, Facebook or Twitter, qualify. As both have a public content existence off the platform.
Contact of interaction
“âcloud storage or shared document…what does this exclusion mean?”
You know exactly what they mean. Unfortunately it’s bad for a law to be so generic.
…“Amazon exclusionâ? If so, Iâm not sure they are getting their moneyâs worth.”
Why does everyone forget eBay and DVD empire?
“Should we call this the âNetflix exclusionâ?”
Well, there’s also stuff like Apple Music and tubi, or maybe it’s the real Amazon carve out for Prime Video?
But as for differentiation with UGC, UGC may be self created, authorised, licensed, or illegal.
private interpretations that are not shared to protect against gaming,
We’re never going to agree on this but I’m hardenedly against not listing rules and prohibitions.
private interpretations that are too detailed for public consumption,
Huh? Just… huh?
private interpretations that governments ask/demand the services donât tell the public about,
Well, guss this law overrules that for state and sub-state jurisdiction. But government secrecy actions like that should be banned as unconstitutional. They violate due process.
private interpretations that are made on the fly in response to exigencies,
How hard is it to edit a page and add a word of few.
Shouldn’t be made. If your rule is detrimental enough to require exceptions then your rule is flawed and should be reversed.
“could mean noncompliance with the billâs requirements”
That’s a good thing. There should never be non-public rules.
“bill would control and skew the servicesâ editorial decisions”
Or, change the TOS and then act on the new rule.
“They currently arenât required to disclose ANY”
They don’t hose user content. Beyond op-Ed and commentary. But I believe op-Ed and commentary rules should be publicly published.
TOS must include
All sounds good here.
“âHow automated content moderation systems enforce terms of service”
That’s a real problem! The very fact that automated includes AI, that’s not actually possible. Unless we jettisoned self modifying moderation tools. Which I don’t consider a bad idea.
“âHow the social media”
Looks like all the good things at the beginning of the bill, noted above, are for not as now the bill is going off the cliff!
“it looks like the state is demanding the info purely as a raw exercise of power”
See, here they have crammed together a good beginning, with good ideas, then shoved a bunch of bad ideas in the second half.
As far as I can tell there’s one quick easy solution. One that Democrats hate. Completely stop the censorious act of deletion and switch to user level flag-and-hide. A method I support. But totally against the Democratic push.
And a method that generally makes much of the second half of the bill a non-issue.
…requires the publication of policies and practices that justifiably should not be published…
Well, since I reject that adding defined rules as they are dodged is not an undue burden, but the actual job of moderation…
In more realistic view, we have a problem here. The targeted content suppliers isn’t detailed and this will go far beyond the like of Facebook and Twitter (social media).
The NYT hosts UGC! And falls into the monetary range. So does WaPo. The NYP, and CNN and FoxNews.
Many news sites have forums or chats or interactive interaction.
And here’s a nice conspiracy moment. At first glance it appears to be an attempt to make services show the public exactly how they moderate, completely.
I question if this is more a Dem attack on “conservative” media.
Forcing them to display what theY cover allows directed attacks on anything not included.
Or alternative media. I can think of dozens of alt ideas that trigger the left and the right.
And how fast will this be used to trash a site that actual doesn’t delete “except as required by law”.
Aside from my preference of simply allowing community moderation alone, EARBL, which removes any coverage via this bill->
A company could simply black hole Cal IP addresses. Nice. Then what?
I’ve stated such an option about Fl and Tx as well.
It’s not likely. Much of a law like this could be destroyed in court. By an effected company.
But I wouldn’t disregard some companies choice to simply say FUCAL and bam, gone.
Laws like this are “look at me” laws. ‘Look, I doed some stuffs’
The sole goal in the real world is to point out you tried in the next election cycle.
Like Florida and Texas, I think the goal is to pass a law and have it shut down later. For the moment you can say I DID, vs didn’t.
Well now watch as states make their own laws and permissions. Watch how this changes almost nothing beyond Texas.
As a believer in states’ rights and states first, this is a good thing. If you want national abortion rights you need to codify it in a constitutional amendment. Not a court ruling. Until then the state is in charge.
Texas is a fluke it’s large enough that the wide-spread republican population is high enough to counter the tiny congregation of a city. Or three.
And…! Texas has a state abortion law that violates due process by criminalising indirect action AND non action.
Well… good for him.
Many here say he’s popular and I won’t argue on that. He? It’s a he yes? Has only one song in my suggested playlist on Apple and that’s a German bad o know quite well with (him) listed as a “with”.
Somehow (he) is simply, completely, off my raft.
Reality aside, anyone who faces corporate greed in dub/remix/cross that wins, is a win for entertainment!
I don’t see why it matters. If the point was the source takes a risk, well that’s a set of hyperbole that works.
How you take such a comment is entirely on you. Let’s be honest. Many leakers get killed. All over the world. Even here.
So passing the buck on a corpse is a good way to deflect.
Again, this has nothing to do with the factuality of any leak.
I’ll have to go back to see the video again. But it looked to me like a camera. Not an RPG.
Despite the crew commentary.
I don’t know what the actual rules of engagement were at the time.
Mind you I don’t blame anyone for anything.
All I see is another video that shows war has costs. Human costs.
As for the rest of the post.
A) not Russian disinformation.
B)not a published leak
No, I wasn’t aware of the details. I’ll give it to you that that appears to be inaccurate. But that was not the discussion. I should have made the sentence clearer,
I see no evidence wikileaks ever knowing published a leak that was inaccurate. I didn’t realise there were errors in things unrelated to leaks that I didn’t particularly care about anyway.
As the news portion.
The claim of Russian disinformation. That’s a bold claim, and I’ve yet, even now, to see any evidence of leaks being false or inaccurate, Russian or otherwise.
Because the closest statement is the email leaks. Where there is no, zero, evidence they received the Republican emails that I’ve read.
Which was my point.
And even if they did, and didn’t publish them, maybe it was because Russia asked. Maybe not. Maybe they just hated Clinton. Maybe they liked Trump. We don’t know. But partial reporting is nothing new in news. Fox, CNN, NBC, Etc. They all have a plan in reporting. A “spin” of sorts. A tilt or lean.
Burying a story is not exactly unheard of, is it?!!
Let’s discuss that for a moment.
In discussion of leaks, I claimed they have a record of accuracy.
You point to two things. A non-leak piece of self propaganda. Nothing wrong with presenting your side of the story. It’s not published as a leak.
The other, CM.
Both the original edited video and the not-long-after-released video show the same thing. I don’t see any message or opinion change between the two. I’ll mention I had seen the longer one FIRST. And the shorter one does not change the message at all. Simply cuts out a lot of video that doesn’t show what the intention of the leak was. The targeted killing of non-verified people who were non-combatants.
It looks no more justified in the long version than the short version.
I didn’t see any change in meaning.
A distinction without meaning. If I intentionally trip a runner that is about to win a race because I don’t like that person I know someone else will win instead.
It does have meaning though.
if you trip the runner because you hate him you did so without regard for the actual winner. Your goal was to stop one person. Someone else winning is a byproduct, not the intent.
He is being held for the Us government, not a UK charge. And that is what the long term detention is regarding.
You’re intentionally reading it out of context.
And both versions were released. I didn’t see any change in the full video from the shorter version.
You mean this?
As far as I’m aware he never claimed that himself personally, only stating they don’t reveal sources and that others have made such a link. Not themselves.
If I’m missing something specific I’d be happy to look at it. But I haven’t seen him make such a claim.
The problem is we only can choose Democrats that want to dismantle us from being us.
Globalism is a key factor in Dem politics.
On top of that they now refuse to compromise on anything. Things the party stood for in the 2000s and teens got tossed because Republicans agreed with them. Like border security. Or pulling out of international nation building.
I remember how Obama offered HOPE that we
would end the wars in the Middle East.
Withdraw from that part of the world.
How he would secure our borders.
Close foreign military bases.
Open up relations with Cuba
Put states and state’s rights first
Tax the richest companies properly
Close tax loopholes.
Where’d all that good stuff go.
Instead they ignore the southern border, try to ban rifles which account for less than 1% of gun deaths, spend indefinitely without cutting, and threaten nuclear war!
Tax non-spendable money, declare globalism. And burn the economy.
“Progressives” have taken over the party. They don’t care about the us and me. The you. They only care about themselves.
Even the NYT has started pointing out the Dem leadership is a closed society out of touch with reality.
Maybe we’ll get another like Obama some day; an Obama who isn’t so easily pulled in and puppetted by the elites.
We can hope.
Open App Markets bill would magically undermine security on mobile phones
You own it. Break it however you like. Let the idiots destroy their phones. Have at it.
No, again my only concern with forcing (easier, you already can) side loading on Apple mobile devices is what liability will apple be forced to take on for stupid people.
When an iPhone gets bricked by ransomware and is under warranty, how long before lawsuits fire up to force repair? Not that these suits would go far, but it’s just another burn of money for the company.
It would allow Apple to deny access to an encryption service provider
and could be used to deny users the ability to use competing services that offer better security/privacy than the incumbent platform
I’m not sure how apple could deny anything with an open install system. I’m missing something here? A user could download an app and install it. The only thing apple could actually do is bar using their own services with another service. Direct App interaction. Which is their right.
Or access by non-app store apps to apple’s services. That’s not exactly a new idea. Apple has no mandate (and should have no mandate) to allow some non-apple app access to say, iCloud.
You want something not in the App Store, you should not expect it to work like it came from the App Store.
Buy a generic android tablet not defined and authorised by google you shouldn’t expect playstore, at all, let alone working.
I’ve bought “disposable” tablets from time to time to try running something near-guaranteed to do damage to the device. Those $10-$25 tablets don’t have any google software. Installing playstore (unofficially) may or may not work.
If the idea/concern here is apple could bar non-Apple-approved apps from accessing Apple services and features… GOOD!
That maintains Apple’s security!
The last thing we need to be reading about is some rogue encryption app that encrypts an iCloud Drive and then shuts down, and somehow it’s Apple’s fault.
Looks more like this is demanding you want to do whatever you want on the phone (rightfully) AND demanding that those items work perfectly in harmony despite Apple never approving use.
When you use outside software you throw safety and compatibly out the window, from the walled garden. It’s on the user to know what they’re doing. Nobody has a mandate to hold your hand and never should such a mandate be made.
Show a single time where wikileaks posted a leak that wasn’t authentic. Feel free. Link please.
In the meantime: you’re statement about Breitbart is out of context. At the time it was made it was in discussions how they, usually, if not always, posted retractions or correction updates, vs WaPo who did/does so quite rarely.
Go back and reread those (rather old) posts. It was always comparison with other options. And I stand by what I said at the time in context. It’s been a long while since I read anything from them.