From the censorship, to the weaponization of DoJ, to warmongering, to 'government choosing winners and losers' in the marketplace, to a million other things, the playbook is consistent:
Accuse others of doing [$THING] you know full well they aren't, but that you plan to do, so that when you get around to doing [$THING], it's normalized, and you're only "balancing the scales."
If AI (or really, almost any new technology) were really so helpful, useful, and in-demand, why do all these companies insist on making it opt-out instead of opt-in?
If there were any legitimate value to most users, they would seek it out without having it shoved down their throats.
And we'll get to go through this all again in a few years when there's a President who interprets the TikTok law about foreign media ownership to require the Saudis to divest.
Maybe it's just a strawman, but imagine a world where there is a jackbooted officer on every corner, and all homes were made of glass - curtains are outlawed, of course. You have to check out and check in at every place you visit.
Crime would, in theory, be way down. But is that a world anyone actually wants? Zero privacy, zero freedom. Does the vendor of any opaque object get smeared as someone who supports child abuse, or worse?
Freedom for the sake of freedom should be every bit as important to policymakers. When the ratchet only turns one direction, that's how we end up in an authoritarian police state.
Anyone who willfully and repeatedly uses "the truth" is guilty of interfering with Donald Trump's reelection chances.
And we should all be cheering it on.
Imagine thinking a federal judge is just a fancy-robe-wearing intro-to-law tutor who isn't so much "rejecting your suit completely" as much as "redlining a first draft."
"Please believe our carefully crafted press release that's been approved by the legal department rather than the off-the-cuff remarks we made when we didn't think anyone was listening."
Strong State and national SLAPP laws would be good, but if we really want to stop all this bullshit, what we need is personal liability for abuse of official powers. Cops and AGs get away with this all the time because - at worst - they just have to write a check from somebody else's bank account (taxpayers).
Courts don't want to get involved in "political" disputes, especially when a sizable portion of the populace backs the abuse, but somebody needs to be the adult in the room.
We’ve seen ample indication that streaming executives have learned absolutely nothing from history
Not surprising given that most streaming services outside Netflix and Amazon are just the same old traditional pay-TV companies with a fresh coat of paint.
Paramount, Disney, Max [or whatever it's called this week], Discovery, etc. Steaming isn't exactly a new business as much is it's just a pivot from getting retransmission fees from cable companies to going direct to consumer. They certainly had to build up the infrastructure to do it, but at the end of the day, all they did was cut out the middle man. The momentum is strong to keep doing what they've done for 50+ years.
Other departments are watching, alright. Watching in awe at how this guy keeps getting away with his career of bullshit.
If he doesn't get another position as an officer, it will be because a police union snaps him up as a consultant first.
"We won't see as much election interference if we don't have a huge team dedicated to finding election interference" does have big "the virus will go away if we stop testing" energy.
It's an appropriate name. Any time a reporter writes an article on the company, the first thing I'm doing is moving my cursor to the top right corner of the window and clicking "X".
It's not just this.
From the censorship, to the weaponization of DoJ, to warmongering, to 'government choosing winners and losers' in the marketplace, to a million other things, the playbook is consistent: Accuse others of doing [$THING] you know full well they aren't, but that you plan to do, so that when you get around to doing [$THING], it's normalized, and you're only "balancing the scales."
If AI (or really, almost any new technology) were really so helpful, useful, and in-demand, why do all these companies insist on making it opt-out instead of opt-in? If there were any legitimate value to most users, they would seek it out without having it shoved down their throats.
And we'll get to go through this all again in a few years when there's a President who interprets the TikTok law about foreign media ownership to require the Saudis to divest.
Maybe it's just a strawman, but imagine a world where there is a jackbooted officer on every corner, and all homes were made of glass - curtains are outlawed, of course. You have to check out and check in at every place you visit. Crime would, in theory, be way down. But is that a world anyone actually wants? Zero privacy, zero freedom. Does the vendor of any opaque object get smeared as someone who supports child abuse, or worse? Freedom for the sake of freedom should be every bit as important to policymakers. When the ratchet only turns one direction, that's how we end up in an authoritarian police state.
Anyone who willfully and repeatedly uses "the truth" is guilty of interfering with Donald Trump's reelection chances. And we should all be cheering it on.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." AGFL is illiterate, then.
When the public servants view the public as servants, we've lost our way.
Imagine thinking a federal judge is just a fancy-robe-wearing intro-to-law tutor who isn't so much "rejecting your suit completely" as much as "redlining a first draft."
To be fair
It wasn't just the logo. The biker exclaimed, "Fucks' sake, what are we doing?" which is also the company motto, apparently.
I can't wait for every document shredding company to be swept up in every mail fraud case. 🙄
"Please believe our carefully crafted press release that's been approved by the legal department rather than the off-the-cuff remarks we made when we didn't think anyone was listening."
Meanwhile, others on Substack are downplaying the importance of T&S altogether.
Oh shit! Why didn't anybody ever think of just banning the bad stuff and keeping the good stuff? T&S must be so simple!Strong State and national SLAPP laws would be good, but if we really want to stop all this bullshit, what we need is personal liability for abuse of official powers. Cops and AGs get away with this all the time because - at worst - they just have to write a check from somebody else's bank account (taxpayers). Courts don't want to get involved in "political" disputes, especially when a sizable portion of the populace backs the abuse, but somebody needs to be the adult in the room.
Other departments are watching, alright. Watching in awe at how this guy keeps getting away with his career of bullshit. If he doesn't get another position as an officer, it will be because a police union snaps him up as a consultant first.
Can you report the reply-bot for disinformation?
Haha, j/k. They don't care about that, either.
"We won't see as much election interference if we don't have a huge team dedicated to finding election interference" does have big "the virus will go away if we stop testing" energy.
Sony's going to put a rootkit on your computer for that comment!
It's an appropriate name. Any time a reporter writes an article on the company, the first thing I'm doing is moving my cursor to the top right corner of the window and clicking "X".