This bill is fucked.
Essentially it forces websites to serve as law enforcement.
That's never a good thing. Besides literally being a tenant of communism (having private businesses do the government's dirty work), it will also make it incredibly difficult for a new platform to start, or an existing, small platform to not be torn down.
It is not a social media company's job to prevent bad things from happening on their site. That is the job of law enforcement, who have to operate within the confines of the constitution. When they push these measures, they're literally doing it as a way to get around constitutional restrictions.
And, yes, sometimes there are crimes that cannot be prevented within the confines of the constitution. Those are the price we pay for freedom.
It will hopefully bring some of those people over to alternative content specifically to watch Tucker. And, once there, their eyes will open even wider.
Yes, that trial was a failure of the prosecution, not the jury.
They decide based on the evidence presented not on evidence not presented.
Correct. But the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Therefore the evidence should be completely damning and there should be no possible evidence that could later come up that would exonerate. That's the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
There is no scenario where I would vote to convict someone of a crime that can carry the death penalty, but wouldn't be willing to vote to sentence them to the death penalty.
A juror were sure the defendant was guilty, but also thought new evidence could change their mind.
Then that is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so those jurors should not be voting guilty.
So you deny that it could even be possible.
I didn't deny that. Jurors vote poorly all of the time. But they also aren't currently told explicitly to not convict unless they are positive that no new evidence could come out that would overturn the conviction.
You can search "exonerated new evidence"
Yes, and those juries all fucked up by voting guilty when they weren't sure beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are also examples of people who were sentenced to the death penalty by a unanimous jury who were later found out to be not guilty with new evidence. It happens.
Minimum standard of evidence would be to convict.
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Simple. The exact same standard I would apply to a death penalty sentencing.
That's my point here. Perhaps the disconnect is that I hold a higher standard for sentencing than you do. In my mind, the second jury for sentencing death penalty is completely superfluous.
Three people who are convinced of guilt with possibility of future exoneration
These people should not vote guilty, even in the current system. If they do, then they are not convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If they vote guilty, then they've effectively voted for execution under a supermajority scheme
Sure, but they know that. Which only adds to my previous statement that they shouldn't vote guilty if they aren't sure he's guilty. Voting guilty relying on future exoneration if further evidence comes out is not how juries should work. Hopefully this law forces jurors deciding innocent or guilty to vote more appropriately, knowing that there may not be a possibility of future exoneration.
A supermajority to execute where some jurors have doubts is a lower standard than the conviction where no jurors have doubts
That's not true. Because a prerequisite of that supermajority is a unanimous jury that the crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 unanimous jury + 1 supermajority > just 1 unanimous jury
There's not even possibility of new evidence or mistakes.
That is an impossible standard.
In order to get the death penalty, you still have to be convicted of a crime that qualifies for the death penalty by a unanimous jury.
I see no reason why a convicted criminal of a violent crime by unanimous jury deserves the right to another unanimous jury before being put to death. Giving them a sentencing jury at all seems generous since they have already been convicted by one.
Queer never meant happy. It meant (and still means) weird.
This may not be intentional, but this is the same tactic leftists have used for decades.
By pulling on the extreme side, you make everyone else look sensible in comparison.
Alex Jones seems reasonable. Donald Trump seems like a centrist.
We should make the same change in real life.
Haha.
I agree, though. It seems completely reasonable to teach marksmanship and gun safety in grade school. It should be required.
The Swiss model also involves not having a rampant nigger population.
I'm just glad to see that the left is trying to get on board "alt-tech" in response to their grievances with big tech.
The right has been trying to do that for years, and utterly failing. I suspect the left will fail similarly. They'll stay on Twitter, just like the right did. And those who don't, will either abandon social media entirely, or be split among a billion different alt-tech options.
Even if Alex was mistaken, it still isn't a "lie."
But he was right, so that doesn't even matter.
He didn't give them any power. They already had power.
To me this tweet reads like "look, I tried giving them what they wanted, and they weren't satisfied, so might as well go forward without them"
But only time will tell.
Not giving money does mean destroying free speech. Free speech is a concept; not just an amendment in our constitution.
Because they're not "not giving money" for business reasons. They're doing so for ideological reasons.
Rather, the companies are complying with shareholders for business reasons, but the shareholders are making demands for ideological reasons.
And who am I talking about when I say "shareholders"? It's not me and you just because we hold some stocks. It's the few investment firms who are in charge of all the money we voluntarily give them in our 401ks to make us "stable returns."
The interests of these few individuals converge and that leads them to have no competition when it comes to enforcing their ideology.
It's not just Google, but Google is the company that is most poised to stop it on their platform. They are completely capable. I'm pretty sure they've actually reverted algorithm improvements that stopped this type of aggressive SEO.
The specific problem I'm referring to isn't even controversial stuff. It's basic shit like looking up how to do a DIY repair on your car or whatever. The search results are orders of magnitude worse than they use to be.
It's because Google provides the ads on these shitty websites. Google has a vested interest in not deranking shitty websites with a billion ads and poorly written articles that are only written specifically to game the search algorithm.
Exactly. The root of the problem is that Google is simultaneously a search engine and the largest ads provider for the internet. Google has a vested interest in showing you search results that have the most ads on their websites. I'm not saying they're propping up results directly that have more ads; but I'm saying there is a correlation between websites with aggressive SEO and a high number of ads. Where Google would, in the past, change their algorithm to lower the ranking of websites with clearly aggressive SEO (it's not even that hard to detect when someone is trying to game the system.), I speculate that because of this correlation with ads, they've reverted.
So instead of getting a website that's a page of text and images hosted on someone's home server somewhere that tells you exactly what you need to know in a clean way, you only get articles mass-produced by some "writer" somewhere (he's probably verified on Twitter, though), whose sole job is to write these horrible articles scavenging a minute amount of information from another website to fit in somewhere, mostly just so they have a vessel to attach their SEO onto.
The sad thing is that this minute amount of information they scavenge for now often comes from other articles written like this because they're what appears on Google for the "writers", so it's a huge feedback loop.
What ends up happening is you'll have one decent piece of advice for the problem you're searching for that will be the basis for all of the top search results, where the articles take that brief piece of advice and reword it, surrounding it in ads, and repeating the search query they're targeting over and over within their article.
The website's usually more like:
The key to repairing your Dell Optimum 4260 can be different depending on your individual situation with repairing your Dell Optimum 4260. Many people have had frustrations with repairing the Dell Optimum 4260. In this article, we will review 6 different solutions for repairing the Dell Optimum 4260 without taking it apart. No tools are required for repairing the Dell Optimum 4260 as we will discuss how to repair the Dell Optimum 4260 without tools.
Their algorithm can rig and election, identify less than a second of copyrighted audio or video, and push to you what keeps you engaged. It does all of this insanely well.
But they "can't" stop the rampant bot problem, from obvious scams posted all over to bots sponsored by Soros and our government to push propaganda.
They "can't" make their search results show relevant information. Nowadays if you search for something simple, all the results are utterly shit. You get nothing but shitty lists thrown together by someone mass producing shitty lists that repeat themselves for SEO. No useful information.
It didn't use to be this way. But these "blogs" figured out how to game the SEO. Google use to actively discourage this type of SEO, because it's obviously bad for their consumers. They actually worked to mitigate it. But now, they just gave up, and probably reverted all their work. I am 100% sure that Google is fully capable of giving good results again; they just don't.
The difference, though, is that "homophobes" on the right aren't "scared" of gays, just disgusted by them. So it's a misnomer.
Whereas woke homophobes are actually and truly afraid of right-leaning gays.
I know a few alt-tech companies are talking about entering the payment processing space, but it doesn't seem to be the focus of any at this time. Which is a shame, because it seems to be insanely profitable, with clear monopolies, and not too difficult to get into if you have the capital.
Nobody deserves to die just for the crime of accidentally stepping out in front of a semi truck on the highway.
Nobody deserves to die because they stumbled on top of a mountain.