YouTube's actions are driven by a legally bound fiduciary obligation to maximize ad revenue.
So it's possible their response satisfied the companies who advertise on the platform.
Tim Pool and others believe the sudden outrage against Crowder (he's been ragging on the "lispy little queer" for two years) is a campaign by Vox and Vox's backers to shut down competition across the platform. Crowder is just the logical focal point for the false outrage.
YouTube created a place where independent creators spend very little money to command the attention of millions. Vox spends the millions they get from NBC to carefully plan and create their content, only to find out they aren't getting as many eyeballs as their project managers estimated and 16 year old kids with $400 YouTube Creator Kits from eBay make more than Vox.
Vox is jealous because their business model isn't working and they can't really change it. Then their own employees who feel entitled to [whatever the Vox union is demanding] turn against them.
If this is a "follow the money" situation, all that kind of makes sense. There's a culture war going on now, but it's probable Vox is just using it as a vehicle to snuff out competition. YouTube's response satisfied their advertisers and sent a message to big budget producers like Vox indicating YouTube isn't interested in abandoning its business model and will continue to allow individuals with laptops to make a living so long as they aren't dicks about it.
My intent wasn't to be confrontational or otherwise start a political argument. I'll respond anyway... (A) I haven't read peer reviewed studies regarding the collaboration to deplatform entire ideologies among social media platforms in the United States. I've simply noticed dozens of pieces of content about some high profile people who were deplatformed. These people weren't part of the same group until content creators began to tell us they are all far-right hate speech types who aren't welcome anywhere online. These people tend to be viewed politically as right-leaning. None of these people have ever aroused negative emotions in me. I don't feel they use their influence for nefarious purposes. Some of these people now allege two far left organizations (CAIR and the SLPC) devoted to "social justice" (whatever that is) spent lots of money to create a fake social media campaign intended to get them kicked off popular platforms. Lawsuits are ongoing. It's telling that the "alt-right" Farrakhan was used to pretend it was totally neutral. He seems to have been dropped from the narrative. (B) I reject your command to believe something, I will choose to trust my nervous system to recognize external stimuli and process that data so I'm able to integrate it into my personal life experience and form my own opinions. It's worked so far. I'll respond by saying I believe diversity and neutrality are different concepts and my empathy level for burdened platforms is very low. It's also irrelevant.
I'm trying to understand how kicking people off a platform or preventing people from signing up fits into 230.
It makes platforms immune from lawsuits for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material" and it allows them to filter whatever. Fine. It's about content and filters.
"Any action" is used when referencing content (material). Nothing about users. Platforms can delete and filter as they please. How does this extend to banning a user who might post unpalatable content in the future when the law starts off saying how congress recognizes the internet is super duper because it "offer(s) a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity"?
I understand why they can kick someone off for TOS violations. A TOS can be interpreted to mean anything. They use this excuse when notifying someone about being kicked off. Great. Do what you want. 230 and a platform's own TOS are different things. I don't understand how hiding behind 230 applies to a scenario where platforms are collaborating to choose which set of ideologies are permitted when 230 recognizes "true diversity" and all that good stuff. Maybe it's "any action", but that seems like a stretch.
The purpose of public education in Arizona is to produce knowledgeable and competent adults who are able to participate as informed citizens in the democratic process of selecting representation in our constitutional republic.
To me, this reads like, "The schools' job is to groom children to participate in a pathological bipolar political system in a way that doesn't upset the status quo because us politicians don't like it when things go off script."
The guy states right up front the main goal of funding public education is indoctrination then goes on to negate the stated purpose.
I'm not from Arizona, so maybe I weren't edgookated rite.
I always believed the purpose of public education was to teach kids stuff so they learn how to learn and become knowledgeable in a variety of subject matter with the goal of helping to create competent adults capable of autonomous thinking who have the motivation to become the best versions of themselves while doing their best to help society evolve into the best possible version we can handle.
There's no need to teach math or science if it doesn't support the stated purpose of education. Do they get diplomas after scoring at least a D- on the "Read a lawn sign and check some boxes on paper" class? Do they get extra credit if they can navigate to the Wikipedia page of a candidate? That's probably for the AP kids.
Patents like this are strange. The USA patented cannabinoids (in general) in 1998 (US6630507 B1). Sativex is a simple tincture of cannabis. Such tinctures were widely prescribed in the US prior to prohibition. Bayer and Lilly produced several pharmaceuticals based on "Indian Hemp" and "Cannabis Americana". The scare quotes around "medical" in this context are unnecessary. The human endocannabinoid system is evolutionarily conservative. It's DNA firmware. The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide is a neurotransmitter that permits an embryo to communicate with a uterus (among other things). Humans wouldn't exist without it. The cannabis plant has been cultivated by humans for millennia... not just for fiber, but also for dietary supplementation.
GWPharma uses tissue culture to "clone" several different strains. They run a giant grow operation. When harvest time comes, they chop the plants and extract the medicinal components by bathing them in supercritical CO2 for a few hours, evaporate the solvent, then mix the goopy residue with ethanol and propylene glycol. They fill a spray bottle with it and call it a pharmaceutical drug... Profit! The ratios of cannabinoids and terpenes are what makes each strain unique. Different strains have very different physiological effects. THC is just one of many phytocannabinoids produced by the plant that exert their effects in a synergistic manner in conjunction with the various terpenes also produced by the plant (google "entourage effect"). I'm not a patent attorney, but I wouldn't be surprised if strain profiles are the basis of how they believe they can use the patent system to their advantage. There are an infinite number of possible strains that can be produced by man. Patent worthy? Time will tell. It might not matter.
It's also worth noting that some breeders are keen to vigorously defend the fruits of their labor, but aren't able to use legal methods to do so. This falls over into trademark territory... DJ Short is the creator of the legendary Blueberry strain. He's stated in interviews that he doesn't like it when people hijack the name of his strains for random junk crosses.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by nothing.
Who Can't Get no Satisfaction?
YouTube's actions are driven by a legally bound fiduciary obligation to maximize ad revenue.
So it's possible their response satisfied the companies who advertise on the platform.
Tim Pool and others believe the sudden outrage against Crowder (he's been ragging on the "lispy little queer" for two years) is a campaign by Vox and Vox's backers to shut down competition across the platform. Crowder is just the logical focal point for the false outrage.
YouTube created a place where independent creators spend very little money to command the attention of millions. Vox spends the millions they get from NBC to carefully plan and create their content, only to find out they aren't getting as many eyeballs as their project managers estimated and 16 year old kids with $400 YouTube Creator Kits from eBay make more than Vox.
Vox is jealous because their business model isn't working and they can't really change it. Then their own employees who feel entitled to [whatever the Vox union is demanding] turn against them.
If this is a "follow the money" situation, all that kind of makes sense. There's a culture war going on now, but it's probable Vox is just using it as a vehicle to snuff out competition. YouTube's response satisfied their advertisers and sent a message to big budget producers like Vox indicating YouTube isn't interested in abandoning its business model and will continue to allow individuals with laptops to make a living so long as they aren't dicks about it.
Re:
My intent wasn't to be confrontational or otherwise start a political argument. I'll respond anyway... (A) I haven't read peer reviewed studies regarding the collaboration to deplatform entire ideologies among social media platforms in the United States. I've simply noticed dozens of pieces of content about some high profile people who were deplatformed. These people weren't part of the same group until content creators began to tell us they are all far-right hate speech types who aren't welcome anywhere online. These people tend to be viewed politically as right-leaning. None of these people have ever aroused negative emotions in me. I don't feel they use their influence for nefarious purposes. Some of these people now allege two far left organizations (CAIR and the SLPC) devoted to "social justice" (whatever that is) spent lots of money to create a fake social media campaign intended to get them kicked off popular platforms. Lawsuits are ongoing. It's telling that the "alt-right" Farrakhan was used to pretend it was totally neutral. He seems to have been dropped from the narrative. (B) I reject your command to believe something, I will choose to trust my nervous system to recognize external stimuli and process that data so I'm able to integrate it into my personal life experience and form my own opinions. It's worked so far. I'll respond by saying I believe diversity and neutrality are different concepts and my empathy level for burdened platforms is very low. It's also irrelevant.
If 230 is about "material"...?
I'm trying to understand how kicking people off a platform or preventing people from signing up fits into 230.
It makes platforms immune from lawsuits for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material" and it allows them to filter whatever. Fine. It's about content and filters.
"Any action" is used when referencing content (material). Nothing about users. Platforms can delete and filter as they please. How does this extend to banning a user who might post unpalatable content in the future when the law starts off saying how congress recognizes the internet is super duper because it "offer(s) a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity"?
I understand why they can kick someone off for TOS violations. A TOS can be interpreted to mean anything. They use this excuse when notifying someone about being kicked off. Great. Do what you want. 230 and a platform's own TOS are different things. I don't understand how hiding behind 230 applies to a scenario where platforms are collaborating to choose which set of ideologies are permitted when 230 recognizes "true diversity" and all that good stuff. Maybe it's "any action", but that seems like a stretch.
The purpose of education is indoctrination. Not indoctrination.
Sadly, the bill says:
To me, this reads like, "The schools' job is to groom children to participate in a pathological bipolar political system in a way that doesn't upset the status quo because us politicians don't like it when things go off script."
The guy states right up front the main goal of funding public education is indoctrination then goes on to negate the stated purpose.
I'm not from Arizona, so maybe I weren't edgookated rite.
I always believed the purpose of public education was to teach kids stuff so they learn how to learn and become knowledgeable in a variety of subject matter with the goal of helping to create competent adults capable of autonomous thinking who have the motivation to become the best versions of themselves while doing their best to help society evolve into the best possible version we can handle.
There's no need to teach math or science if it doesn't support the stated purpose of education. Do they get diplomas after scoring at least a D- on the "Read a lawn sign and check some boxes on paper" class? Do they get extra credit if they can navigate to the Wikipedia page of a candidate? That's probably for the AP kids.
Sativex was granted a US patent in 2011
Patents like this are strange. The USA patented cannabinoids (in general) in 1998 (US6630507 B1). Sativex is a simple tincture of cannabis. Such tinctures were widely prescribed in the US prior to prohibition. Bayer and Lilly produced several pharmaceuticals based on "Indian Hemp" and "Cannabis Americana". The scare quotes around "medical" in this context are unnecessary. The human endocannabinoid system is evolutionarily conservative. It's DNA firmware. The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide is a neurotransmitter that permits an embryo to communicate with a uterus (among other things). Humans wouldn't exist without it. The cannabis plant has been cultivated by humans for millennia... not just for fiber, but also for dietary supplementation.
GWPharma uses tissue culture to "clone" several different strains. They run a giant grow operation. When harvest time comes, they chop the plants and extract the medicinal components by bathing them in supercritical CO2 for a few hours, evaporate the solvent, then mix the goopy residue with ethanol and propylene glycol. They fill a spray bottle with it and call it a pharmaceutical drug... Profit! The ratios of cannabinoids and terpenes are what makes each strain unique. Different strains have very different physiological effects. THC is just one of many phytocannabinoids produced by the plant that exert their effects in a synergistic manner in conjunction with the various terpenes also produced by the plant (google "entourage effect"). I'm not a patent attorney, but I wouldn't be surprised if strain profiles are the basis of how they believe they can use the patent system to their advantage. There are an infinite number of possible strains that can be produced by man. Patent worthy? Time will tell. It might not matter.
It's also worth noting that some breeders are keen to vigorously defend the fruits of their labor, but aren't able to use legal methods to do so. This falls over into trademark territory... DJ Short is the creator of the legendary Blueberry strain. He's stated in interviews that he doesn't like it when people hijack the name of his strains for random junk crosses.