We're not going to search your house, but we are going to put cameras inside your house. That's not a violation of the Fourth amendment. That's not an illegal search until we turn the cameras on.
Did he induce more than 1 person to sign up with this lotto thing? Could it be $10,000 per person? IANAL, but perhaps. If so, that's a billion dollar fine for each 100k people on his list.
I use one of these community owned fiber systems. When I signed up, they said that my internet rate would be $48 a month for gigabit Internet. My actual bill, is $48 a month. And it has been more very long time. Although, they did. Just notify me that connectivity prices are going up. By $2. So they're going to advertise $50 a month. It's great. Price transparency.
Oh, and unlike cable companies and historical telecoms, I actually generally get what is advertised. My upload and download speeds are generally around 970 megabits per second. My ping time to speedtest.net is 1 millisecond.
I am very satisfied with my care.
Modern social-media companies, however, in recommending content to users, arguably function as both bookstore and publisher—making Section 230 feel as distant from today’s digital reality as copyright law does from the Iliad.
Misunderstanding of Section 230 aside, have these people ever been into a bookstore? Bookstores recommend content too! And while sometimes bookstores do recommend content they like, sometimes they recommend content to make money, even if it's not their favorite content.
From a liability perspective, bookstores seem a lot like social media sites.
What would the city do if somebody decided to show pictures of 9/11, or or their breasts, and there wasn't a portal? In the former case, I hope the answer is "nothing". That's freedom of speech, and it should be permitted without concern. In the latter case, there might be a crime of public indecency that might need to be prosecuted. If only there was only a camera that could record who have committed that crime then it could be more easily prosecuted. ;)
So it sounds like you're saying that someone was able to convince people that disinformation actually works and that we have all been, misinformed into being puppets to spread the idea that disinformation is a problem?
While I don't think it is a slam dunk, I would feel much better about providing my ID online if we had meaningful privacy legislation. Companies do not store the CVV code on a credit card because they know they'll get in financial trouble if they do. If there were meaningful privacy legislation that meant storing any idea information beyond what was absolutely necessary, so providing an ID with akin to a bouncer, taking a look at the ID, I'd feel a lot better about these kinds of laws.
I would like to comply with his request. Originally was unsure to what you meant by "delete" but given your recent behavior, now I feel like I understand what delete means. We will "delete" according to Twitter's understanding of the word.
What he's doing is encouraging judges to violate the first amendment, that has got to be more egregious than encouraging someone to break an agreement.
Imagine you're a senior, and you want to play a game. If you're a senior, do you think you can afford water guns that look like real guns? Or are you going to buy the cheapest gun because you don't have a decent job?
I posit that you'll have cheap guns. Don't believe me? Do a search for articles about "senior assassination" and you'll see the bright-colored guns that were used. You'll also see some nerf guns.
I admit there is a picture of a white gun that resembles the shape of a real gun, but the US has laws requiring toy guns be bright for just the purpose that people don't think they're real guns.
It sounds like Take Two Interactive wasn't actually defaming after all? The Pinkerton's really are is shady as the Red Dead Redemption video game implies?
Isn't this picture like 200 years old? Isn't the copyright expired on this picture? I mean sure someone could argue with the placement of a watermark on an image might be considered a creative expression. But I think that there wasn't any creative expression involved. I believe it was automated. I don't believe there was any new work being created here. So I don't think they did violate Getty's copyright, because I don't think Getty has any copyright on the watermarked image.
How long before capitalists come along and say things like, "look, we didn't need to put any regulations on Apple in the United States. Apple decided to make a good decision in America without being forced by American law to do so. Adding regulation doesn't solve anything."?
"prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny."
If only Facebook built a way to say "This post is believed false by our fact checkers, here's why, but you can still see the content if you click through." Oh. They have that already. :facepalm:
Where do you draw the line?
We're not going to search your house, but we are going to put cameras inside your house. That's not a violation of the Fourth amendment. That's not an illegal search until we turn the cameras on.
$10,000 per incident?
Did he induce more than 1 person to sign up with this lotto thing? Could it be $10,000 per person? IANAL, but perhaps. If so, that's a billion dollar fine for each 100k people on his list.
Nickel and Diming is also way lower.
I use one of these community owned fiber systems. When I signed up, they said that my internet rate would be $48 a month for gigabit Internet. My actual bill, is $48 a month. And it has been more very long time. Although, they did. Just notify me that connectivity prices are going up. By $2. So they're going to advertise $50 a month. It's great. Price transparency. Oh, and unlike cable companies and historical telecoms, I actually generally get what is advertised. My upload and download speeds are generally around 970 megabits per second. My ping time to speedtest.net is 1 millisecond. I am very satisfied with my care.
Not only do they misunderstand Section 230, they misunderstand bookstores.
I don't see the problem with remaining open.
What would the city do if somebody decided to show pictures of 9/11, or or their breasts, and there wasn't a portal? In the former case, I hope the answer is "nothing". That's freedom of speech, and it should be permitted without concern. In the latter case, there might be a crime of public indecency that might need to be prosecuted. If only there was only a camera that could record who have committed that crime then it could be more easily prosecuted. ;)
Loophole
Lol at the fourth amendment being called a loophole.
What makes this the largest?
At 200k people that seems much smaller than Project UTOPIA Fiber (which is probably 400k-500k. And I have no idea if it's the biggest.
Wait, isn't that a contradiction?
So it sounds like you're saying that someone was able to convince people that disinformation actually works and that we have all been, misinformed into being puppets to spread the idea that disinformation is a problem?
We need meaningful privacy legislation
While I don't think it is a slam dunk, I would feel much better about providing my ID online if we had meaningful privacy legislation. Companies do not store the CVV code on a credit card because they know they'll get in financial trouble if they do. If there were meaningful privacy legislation that meant storing any idea information beyond what was absolutely necessary, so providing an ID with akin to a bouncer, taking a look at the ID, I'd feel a lot better about these kinds of laws.
I think the abbreviation is fine
I think what he was aiming for was Film Consulting Kravmaga BLooMberg = FCKBLM
Doors too
Yes, encryption is being used to hide bad things. So are doors. Doors are used to hide bad things. Should we ban doors . . . for the children?
We will "delete"
I would like to comply with his request. Originally was unsure to what you meant by "delete" but given your recent behavior, now I feel like I understand what delete means. We will "delete" according to Twitter's understanding of the word.
Are his actions illegal by his own logic?
What he's doing is encouraging judges to violate the first amendment, that has got to be more egregious than encouraging someone to break an agreement.
Do you know what is also overblown? The resemblance to real guns.
Imagine you're a senior, and you want to play a game. If you're a senior, do you think you can afford water guns that look like real guns? Or are you going to buy the cheapest gun because you don't have a decent job? I posit that you'll have cheap guns. Don't believe me? Do a search for articles about "senior assassination" and you'll see the bright-colored guns that were used. You'll also see some nerf guns. I admit there is a picture of a white gun that resembles the shape of a real gun, but the US has laws requiring toy guns be bright for just the purpose that people don't think they're real guns.
Take Two should countersue?
It sounds like Take Two Interactive wasn't actually defaming after all? The Pinkerton's really are is shady as the Red Dead Redemption video game implies?
What about wards of the state?
Who has to be punished if wards of the state break this law? The state right?
What's the problem?
Isn't Elon the only one left on Twitter?
Is it really copyright infringement though?
Isn't this picture like 200 years old? Isn't the copyright expired on this picture? I mean sure someone could argue with the placement of a watermark on an image might be considered a creative expression. But I think that there wasn't any creative expression involved. I believe it was automated. I don't believe there was any new work being created here. So I don't think they did violate Getty's copyright, because I don't think Getty has any copyright on the watermarked image.
"Do we really need regulation?"
How long before capitalists come along and say things like, "look, we didn't need to put any regulations on Apple in the United States. Apple decided to make a good decision in America without being forced by American law to do so. Adding regulation doesn't solve anything."?
If only there were a way...
"prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny." If only Facebook built a way to say "This post is believed false by our fact checkers, here's why, but you can still see the content if you click through." Oh. They have that already. :facepalm: