I dumped the WaPo after the Harris decision. I'm horrified to see that I made the right choice.
All of this is part of these assholes plan. Make media, especial old, respected media, unreliable. Muddy the waters and slant things until the definitions of 'truth' and 'falsehood' mean functionally nothing and the public just....walks away in disgust.
That's what they want.
Setting aside drug dogs etc....
That got me thinking...does heroin have a smell? Like if you took a sniff of a vial of it? I've never seen the stuff in person....
Lookieloos have always been around. This is not new. Heck, its not legal in most states to follow within 500 feet of a firetruck when they are in active duty (ie. not just going back to the station).
Its already illegal to interfere with first responders. The same argument you are making here has been applied in the past - to newspaper photojournalists, journalists, TV reporters and cameramen.
Yes, 'influencers' and other internet-points-for-the-win individuals are in disfavor....but they are no different than lookieloos or the press in the past. Current law already covers them and makes interference illegal.
The ones that are really complaining here are the cops, who want to be able to do whatever they want and then rely on he-said-she-said to defend their actions, rather than evidentiary video and audio.
This is to pander to cops and the pro-cop crowd. Nothing more. Existing law covered this already.
Bezos has been fabulously wealthy for a long time now. His use of 'fuck-you money' likely happened when he was a simple multi-millionaire.
That kind of thinking gets old after a while - you start wanting to prove that you have earned all that money by being smart about beating your opponents and naysayers, rather than the nuclear money approach. The ego must be fed.
I think what the stopgap measure will be is news laws in the states. I think a handful of blue states will enable what amounts to the federal net neutrality in state law - the FCC has abandoned that authority, so the Supremacy Clause does not come into play.
The monopolists know that metered connections, fast lanes, preferred traffic (superINTERNET!) and all the other anti-neutrality shenanigans will make them money....but also that it pisses everybody off. These companies are massively unpopular anyway - but these shenanigans are not a long-term supplemental revenue plan.
So now they are going to face a horrific patchwork of state laws, including anti-neutrality laws in red states, designed to put one state in conflict with another. Managing that mishmash over time will be expensive both operationally and legally.
Plus, Americans may not pay much attention, but how much better broadband is in both speed, choice, and cost in other countries is obvious today. American exceptionalism wears thin when it hits the average pocketbook.
Lastly, we are, despite all of the crap happening, in an era where right to repair is finally gaining traction, as well as labor movements. Both a plus. Corporate greed and overreach is FAR over the top, and this has the public nervous...and aware of the income inequality. These kinds of feelings by the public leads to genuine anger at corporations like telcos who's hand they can feel in their pocket, filching money.
If they want things to get better - embrace neutrality in law and MOVE ON. Because the way that these telcos are going, they can bend a little now, or be forced to bend a LOT later.
You are right - they don't cover the legal decision. But I don't think that makes what they are saying here invalid or empty.
I think the legal parts of it are.....interesting but ultimately superfluous. The heart of this is the telecom industry vs. consumers and their wish to continue to pursue revenue streams that are anti-competitive and anti-customer. The laws can and should be changed...but the telcos have achieved regulatory capture in the U.S.
However, in support of the spirit of your thought, I do think that the corruption emphasis is over the top - it actually harms the author's persuasiveness of the argument by moving boldly into the realm of ranting.
Empty negativity, no actual points, and an ad hominem attack.
Plus, an attempt to keep anyone from replying by claiming you won't be back to check or reply.
You're not even good at trolling.
Not even really a slap on the wrist. More of a rounding error finger wag.
You want T-Mobile to take this seriously? Put their Chairman, CEO, and CISO in jail. 30 days will do, to start.
Which is ultimately the problem: voters don’t care about the cost of legal liability.
Hmmm...I think most voters simply don't have that kind of memory, or have signed up for the pro/anti cop binary mentality. Pro cop wants nothing changed. Anti-cop wants so much more than liability reform.
Its also an open question if this is something that the average voter should be basing their choices on. If you are electing a new mayor, sure police policy is a point to use in decision making. But all the way down to liability insurance policies?
I think that using the overly litigious American system of civil law isn't the right way to go. We need more accountability of Chiefs of Police, more citizen oversight boards, much better hiring standards (education, prior policing performance, etc).
We can't just sue our way out of a broken system - civil lawsuits are only money pressure. Many many many mayors, city councils, and bureaucratic staff will all fall back on "Anything to Keep the Children Safe" and just pay. It won't actually change the broken policing system and attitudes.
I think the reason why Win11 isn't popular is because nobody can install it on older PCs. Out of the 5 PCs I have in the house, I've got exactly one that meets MS's standards for Win11.
I'd have installed it on at least two of them by now. I think that is skewing the numbers.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by TinCoyote.
Fucker
I dumped the WaPo after the Harris decision. I'm horrified to see that I made the right choice. All of this is part of these assholes plan. Make media, especial old, respected media, unreliable. Muddy the waters and slant things until the definitions of 'truth' and 'falsehood' mean functionally nothing and the public just....walks away in disgust. That's what they want.
Well that's terrifying
Two things that bring terror in this:
- Musk having personal control over the US aviation network.
- By using Starlink - what happens in the event of another Starfish Prime or Project K #184 high atmosphere nuclear test/attack?
I know there is a treaty about that...but what does the EMP pulse do to LEO satellites, like Starlink?Huh
Setting aside drug dogs etc.... That got me thinking...does heroin have a smell? Like if you took a sniff of a vial of it? I've never seen the stuff in person....
Dunno
Sounds a lot more like discussing database policy than hate speech.
Fair observation. I stand corrected.
Calm down Francis
Its a both a joke and a request for knowing what exactly that acronym stands for. Googling it revealed nothing.
Lookieloos have always been around. This is not new. Heck, its not legal in most states to follow within 500 feet of a firetruck when they are in active duty (ie. not just going back to the station). Its already illegal to interfere with first responders. The same argument you are making here has been applied in the past - to newspaper photojournalists, journalists, TV reporters and cameramen. Yes, 'influencers' and other internet-points-for-the-win individuals are in disfavor....but they are no different than lookieloos or the press in the past. Current law already covers them and makes interference illegal. The ones that are really complaining here are the cops, who want to be able to do whatever they want and then rely on he-said-she-said to defend their actions, rather than evidentiary video and audio. This is to pander to cops and the pro-cop crowd. Nothing more. Existing law covered this already.
Insightful comment. Well done.
I think that changes over time
Bezos has been fabulously wealthy for a long time now. His use of 'fuck-you money' likely happened when he was a simple multi-millionaire. That kind of thinking gets old after a while - you start wanting to prove that you have earned all that money by being smart about beating your opponents and naysayers, rather than the nuclear money approach. The ego must be fed.
Son
Lets not be entirely credulous, please?
Uhhh
LMFTPFY? Let Me Fuck The Pimply Faced Youth?
Good points
I think what the stopgap measure will be is news laws in the states. I think a handful of blue states will enable what amounts to the federal net neutrality in state law - the FCC has abandoned that authority, so the Supremacy Clause does not come into play. The monopolists know that metered connections, fast lanes, preferred traffic (superINTERNET!) and all the other anti-neutrality shenanigans will make them money....but also that it pisses everybody off. These companies are massively unpopular anyway - but these shenanigans are not a long-term supplemental revenue plan. So now they are going to face a horrific patchwork of state laws, including anti-neutrality laws in red states, designed to put one state in conflict with another. Managing that mishmash over time will be expensive both operationally and legally. Plus, Americans may not pay much attention, but how much better broadband is in both speed, choice, and cost in other countries is obvious today. American exceptionalism wears thin when it hits the average pocketbook. Lastly, we are, despite all of the crap happening, in an era where right to repair is finally gaining traction, as well as labor movements. Both a plus. Corporate greed and overreach is FAR over the top, and this has the public nervous...and aware of the income inequality. These kinds of feelings by the public leads to genuine anger at corporations like telcos who's hand they can feel in their pocket, filching money. If they want things to get better - embrace neutrality in law and MOVE ON. Because the way that these telcos are going, they can bend a little now, or be forced to bend a LOT later.
Not sure that's correct
You are right - they don't cover the legal decision. But I don't think that makes what they are saying here invalid or empty. I think the legal parts of it are.....interesting but ultimately superfluous. The heart of this is the telecom industry vs. consumers and their wish to continue to pursue revenue streams that are anti-competitive and anti-customer. The laws can and should be changed...but the telcos have achieved regulatory capture in the U.S. However, in support of the spirit of your thought, I do think that the corruption emphasis is over the top - it actually harms the author's persuasiveness of the argument by moving boldly into the realm of ranting.
Wow
Empty negativity, no actual points, and an ad hominem attack. Plus, an attempt to keep anyone from replying by claiming you won't be back to check or reply. You're not even good at trolling.
Wait
We had media consolidation limits?
Yar
And a bottle of rum.
Pointless
Not even really a slap on the wrist. More of a rounding error finger wag. You want T-Mobile to take this seriously? Put their Chairman, CEO, and CISO in jail. 30 days will do, to start.
Windows 11
I think the reason why Win11 isn't popular is because nobody can install it on older PCs. Out of the 5 PCs I have in the house, I've got exactly one that meets MS's standards for Win11. I'd have installed it on at least two of them by now. I think that is skewing the numbers.