This is someone who doesn’t understand how things actually work, but thinks they do
Yeah the closer made it clear this was not written by a lawyer or anyone with legal expertise:
"entitling us to seek full indemnity therefor."
Indemnity is a comprehensive form of insurance compensation for damages or loss. When the term indemnity is used in the legal sense, it may also refer to an exemption from liability for damages. Indemnity is a contractual agreement between two parties.
It is to help invest in an idea and guide that idea for a percentage of return on that idea.
"Return", i.e. money. Anyone who thinks a system where money can be made will not become a system for making the rich richer hasn't been paying very close attention to how capitalism works.
In a few years, when hating Trump is as American as apple pie and Tom Cruise movies
I like your optimism.
I’d say take a street poll in any city and ask how many out of 1000 know what the “dark” web is and get 750 yeses. Ask if they’ve used it and get 250-500 yeses.
Overall I agree with your point. But I think those numbers would be more like 10 (who actually know what it is, not who answer "yes" when asked if they do) and zero.
Such reports should be declared commentary. Not news.
As far as I know, there's no legal distinction between commentary and news, only between statements of fact and statements of opinion. And that's as it should be, because you don't want a journalist defaming someone with false statements of fact and then hiding behind "it was commentary!"
Did we mention that people swapped ‘abortion pills’ with “weed” and “guns” and those posts remain up?
The story certainly mentioned it.
"Yet, when the AP reporter made the same exact post but swapped out the words “abortion pills” for “a gun,” the post remained untouched. A post with the same exact offer to mail “weed” was also left up and not considered a violation."
That paper looks like it's about peering and interconnection - i.e. ISPs dealing with one another. If there's any mention of trying to force non-ISP companies to pay more for internet service it isn't mentioned in the introduction or table of contents. So what are you talking about?
And TBH, the only time I ever saw it “sported” very openly was when a Jewish guy named Frank Cohen marched with it through Skokie, IL.
Well here are some more, so you can't continue to claim ignorance:
Irony and sarcasm is always lost on racists and fascists too.
The old conservative chestnut when called out on being horrible. "I was being sarcastic!"
Upon what laws or constitutional rights would he base such an action?
They would just make something up, like they made up the new standard they used to overturn Roe. And the only thing anyone can do about it is a constitutional amendment.
It is only a criminal offense if you do it for financial gain, meaning making money.
Can you point out where it says that? I couldn't find it.
“Overturn” is a legal principle that applies to laws, not precedential opinions.
According to whom?
You're right, though that may make it even more puzzling since now we know that 1) their keyboard has a period/full stop key 2) it works 3) they know about it and 4) seem to know what it's for.
And the decision even permits punctuation on the web!
Right–and Hitler was a left wing ideologue. A socialist.
Wow, Nazi propaganda is still working on idiots 80 years later.
There’s a blog the public are authorized to access, but not change that refutes your hypothesis by its very existence.
That's because read only and edit access are separate for that blog. That was not the case for the Google document (folder? not sure) in question. Full access was granted to both view and edit by a single action. Either that action authorized anyone with the link to view and edit the information, or it didn't. There is no coherent argument for how it could have authorized viewing but not editing.
their general belief and that of their supporters that bad speech should not be stifled by copyright-holding media companies
That's a pretty optimistic read of their position. It would also be fair to state it as the belief that it should not be permissible to stifle speech by conservatives.
Also, I note that part of these requirements would make Elon Musk and others who insist that every user should be “verified” even if their identities are not disclosed publicly.
It would make them... what? Or do you mean they don't really exist currently, and this would create them?
The German Democratic Peoples Republic (GDPR) failed 30 years ago.
Well yes, except no, because there was no such country. It was the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, or in English German Democratic Reepublic). Sorry to step on the joke.
Should have added - while you didn't explicitly claim to be part of EU policy circles, one of the two reasonable ways to interpret your reply implies that you were. The other way, which I'm sure is what you meant, is "Maybe it's taboo in EU policy circles, but it's not taboo to me."