...then we need draconian gun control laws because the "good guy with a gun" hypothesis is now completely blown out of the water (not that I ever bought it).
There isn't any good guy with a gun to protect the public. Congress is supposed to do that with gun control laws. What other option is there?
It just goes to show that expecting there to be a "good guy with a gun" on hand to stop any given mass shooting is a fantasy and needs to be discarded as an argument against gun control. We need an outright ban on civilians owning weapons of war and a ban on bullet sales too.
And so much for "hardening" schools too. The killer got in because a teacher propped up a door. You know, like actual people are prone to do. This is all predictable human behavior and won't change.
What should change: allowing civilians of any age to own weapons of war whose only purpose is to kill humans. If you want to hunt, here's your rifle. If you want to defend your home, here's your handgun. If you want to visit the shooting range, use one of those two. You're not allowed to own nuclear weapons either, and no the Second Amendment isn't an excuse.
Anything else isn't going to work. Other countries have mentally ill people and violent pop culture. They don't have mass shootings every day of the week.
People's behavior has already changed. Who bothers to answer an unfamiliar call anymore? Legit callers know to leave a message and wait for a callback. Everyone has adjusted so if Congress ever does "solve" this (hahaha), the new behavior will continue indefinitely anyway.
I've worked for a living for long enough to guess how all this went down.
A couple months back, Netflix looked at their subscriber data and realized they were in for stock-price armageddon. So they called an emergency meeting to brainstorm solutions.
The obvious one: ads! yeah I know we said never never never but we had our fingers crossed.
But that just gives us one bullet point on the powerpoint! We have to have at least two. What else can we pull outta our ass in a hurry?
After brainstorming ideas (rebrand as Dizzney+, hold a bake sale) they came up with the best of all the bad options for bullet point #2: crack down on password sharing. Yeah yeah we said we didn't care, but see comment about ads.
And the stock price crashed 70% anyway. But now they have to go thru with this nonsense.
Google and Facebook are the big kahunas in ad-based social media. Twitter is an afterthought but if Musk really wanted to change that, he wouldn't be encouraging free speech. He'd be encouraging the kind of speech the bosses - advertisers - want.
Whatever attracts a young demographic (forget anyone over 49, advertisers don't want them). Make sure the content is ad-safe and not something that will drive them away. Controversy is good, up to a point. You want controversy that increases page views but when the Nazis arrive, shut that shit down fast. The advertisers don't want their ads associated with that stuff.
From what I can tell, Musk is a bored zillionaire who is blowing a lot of money to buy his own sandbox where he can do what the fuck ever he pleases. It has nothing particularly to do with free speech.
If he was looking at Twitter as a business, he would be wondering how he can solve its problem that advertisers think it's kind of a joke. He would be looking to broaden the audience and to ensure that content is nothing that would send advertisers screaming for the exits.
If it's not a business for making money, then I guess it's his toy for whatever he wants. Well fine by me, I've never used Twitter. Never liked the business model that makes me a product to be sold to advertisers but whatever Musk has planned no doubt will be even worse and far less rational.
The GOP has belatedly realized that corporations do tend to be run and staffed by educated people who act in accordance with the dictates of basic reality, which makes them enemies in the culture wars.
From the cold-blooded, maximize-profits perspective, there's a sweet spot to how toxic speech on Twitter or other social media "should" be. Toxic enough to draw a crowd, but not so toxic that people start fleeing and most importantly, not so toxic that advertisers pull out.
But Musk has been quoted saying he doesn't like ads (www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/business/media/elon-musk-twitter-ads.html) which is an odd attitude for someone taking over an ad-based business.
Perhaps he wants Twitter as his personal fiefdom/playground and the normal rules of corporate profit maximization don't apply? Perhaps he'd even be happy to run it at a loss and fund it via his personal fortune? If he wants to waste money, I have a lot of better ideas for him.
Or, Musk might switch over to a subscription-based, ad-free Twitter. That would be a great way to clear out the rabble but I wonder who would be left?
The First Amendment says the government cannot infringe free speech. It doesn't say corporations can't.
Twitter, Facebook, etc are not government. They are corporations that make their profit from pleasing their paying customers, namely the advertisers. Not users.
Users are the product. If the product thinks a corporation owes them free speech, then they are wrong in multiple ways.
Everyone is free to leave Twitter, Facebook etc if they object to how they do business. I never use them because I am not a product and don't intend to allow a corporation to treat me as such.
Those who use social media are agreeing to be treated like a product and they can accept the consequences of this decision. I got no sympathy.
The way to stop gun deaths is through stronger gun control laws. There is evidence from all over the world for this, including countries with abundant social media use and violent pop culture, including video games, that have much less or no gun deaths to speak of. Because they have strong gun control laws. The correlation is obvious and clear. If people continue to block gun control laws, then the deaths are on them.
Japan has a lot of very violent and nutty pop culture elements, including video games, and their gun death rate is basically zero. Due to strong gun control laws. That should be enough evidence on how to fix the problem. If the problem continues not to be fixed, it's because people want the problem to continue and the deaths to rack up. Dolts.
On social media, the user is not the customer. The user is the product, to be sold to the customer: advertisers. Advertisers want lots and lots of page views for their ads, and that's achieved by whipping people up into an insane frenzy with controversy and flat-out fake news.
Maybe Congress should go direct to the source of the problem, the advertisers? They have reputations to maintain and are skittish about regulation.
But pounding on social media for doing exactly what it's designed to do is pointless. If people are annoyed at the toxicity of social media, do what I do: leave. Don't generate page views, don't generate ad revenue, the whole nasty system collapses. If you use social media, you are agreeing to support a toxic system. Period.
Why would companies buy Twitter users data unless it somehow, somewhere, came down to advertising at them? Maybe not on Twitter itself, but they could track you across the internet and throw ads at you based on your Twitter behavior. The connection to Twitter may not even be obvious.
Either you pay directly by subscription or indirectly through being hit with advertising.
So France doesn't believe in freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Dress is a form of speech. If burqas didn't say something to people, then nobody would care about them. Do they also get upset when they see other large expanses of cloth, such as drapes? Why get upset over fabric.
"You can’t walk around in the street wearing a hood."
Uh, yes you can. Women who wear full burqa for instance. Maybe that's been outlawed in France but it can't be outlawed in America, since that would violate freedom of religion and I would argue also freedom of speech, since dress is a form of speech (if it didn't say something to people, nobody would get in a dither about a burqa in the first place.
And there are many other examples: covid masks, Halloween costumes, ski masks, motorcycle helmets, the KKK...
But more to the point, even if I walk around without a hood, that doesn't mean I have my name, address and social security number tattooed on my forehead.
There's one valid purpose to the theatrical release window, and that's to protect an incipient new franchise like Dune, something that doesn't come along every day.
What if AT&T putting Dune on HBO Max had undermined box office so badly that the movie didn't make enough of a profit to get a sequel, spinoff shows etc. Streaming is far less lucrative than box office and I doubt it can be used to launch theatrical franchises.
Just look at Netflix. They've never once created a movie franchise that could do anything at the box office except the bare minimum to qualify for Oscars. But Disney has shown that, when you've got a theatrical franchise like Marvel or Star Wars, you can use that to make streaming series galore. We wouldn't have WandaVision or Loki otherwise.
Netflix has saturated N. America and there's no more growth to be had there. They're trying to grow in Asia, where ARPU is far lower so they don't dare charge as much. They are raising prices in N. America to fund growth overseas.
Their problem is, they are simultaneously getting hit with more competition in N. America so they may have miscalculated here, triggering more cancellations than the price increase is worth. And their share price just fell off a cliff, so investors may not be in agreement with this strategy.
Bottom line, streaming is entering a tougher phase now. The big growth will happen in places where ever $10/month is a princely sum. They can still grow, but it will be with cheaper content. I foresee a lot of reality TV and telenovela style shows being made for this or that country.
The whole field will crunch down to just the strongest competitors: Netflix, Disney+, Amazon and the new Discovery/HBO Max combo. Plus AppleTV+ since they are insulated from market realities and can do whatever they please.