This is exactly the point, and also in my opinion the only valid reason to be wary of the super rich: They have a lot of power despite not being elected by anyone.
We did not consent to being ruled and manipulated by these people just by buying their products or using the services provided by their companies.
An indie game, a weeb scientist from said game and a "deep lore" hidden character related to the game's meta.
True! They do lose money on services like Youtube. Though I'm not sure if them no longer being able to run Youtube at a loss would do anything other than make them push the subscription service even harder. I suppose that might help push people toward alternatives like Bitchute though.
I mean, didn't a majority of them vote Trump in 2016? Seems like fertile ground to me.
Heh, a lot of people in the comment section ragging on the guy for saying "the GOP is fine with the KKK".
That's not what he meant, he was posing a hypothetical: If the GOP said they were fine with the KKK, then people would abandon them - so there's no need to censor them.
I'm afraid that even if this goes to trial it's only going to touch a small part of Alphabet (Google's parent company). Their services like Google, Youtube, Chrome or Adsense aren't a huge problem individually, it's everything taken together that makes them such a huge threat to democracy.
That might be worth investigating, though no one has had success with it in court so far because the "good faith" clauses in (c)(2) are so vague (and because even without section 230 they have a first amendment right to censor, ironically).
But the platform versus publisher argument is that they should lose the protection of section 230 if they act as a publisher. The threat of losing that protection would be a big deal because it would encourage them to act as platforms, or risk liability for every defamatory, libelous or otherwise illegal bit of content uploaded to their platform (other than copyright infringement, which is covered by the DMCA). Unfortunately no matter how reasonable it sounds, that argument just isn't supported by the text.
No. Look it up and read the text. Paragraph (c)(1) defines them as platforms, full stop: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Then the other parts protect them from civil liability for censoring. There might be some wiggle room there, especially in terms of tortious interference or contract law (though IANAL). But with (c)(1) as written there simply is no publisher v platform argument to be made. This section just needs to be scrapped and redone.
Anyone remember GamerGate? Remember how the Quinnspiracy turned into GamerGate? This is how you get GamerGate on a much larger scale.
They can review it.. But frankly if you actually read what it says, there's no ambiguity - internet services are defined as platforms. Section 230 is simply not fit for purpose. As painful as the process might be, it needs to be repealed and replaced. Which means Republicans need a majority in the House and wake up to the existential crisis that they're facing.
To me this doesn't read as defending or justifying it. I interpret it as "here's someone making fun of critics of the 1619 Project by making it seem like they think that the 1619 Project is literally trying to redefine when the USA was founded (as a collection of slave states) - but that's a complete strawman of the argument being made (against the 1619 Project) here".
Even if it was a preponderance of evidence standard... There's just no evidence outside "The Video" that favors a conviction. Perhaps if he were being charged with a far lesser crime - but whatever degree of murder they ended up indicting him for, no way. Of course, we'll have to wait and see whether justice will actually be served or if it'll be a show trial.
I've heard it described as a mass paranoid delusion, which seems accurate. At least for the protesters - a lot of the rioters are straight up revolutionaries, and looting is a crime of opportunity. But the protesters who believe that black people are being systematically killed by cops? Paranoid delusion.
I don't know what tests this person thinks they're using but the percentage of people getting tested who test positive here in the Netherlands is 3.1% (58728 out of 1880036 tests as of last Tuesday).
Yeah. Give it time though - the initial response might not be great. Try to keep your cool as best as possible, don't get bogged down arguing about it, make it clear this shit has to stop or they're going to be seeing considerably less of you. Your dad might act tough at first but if he loves you then it'll sink in. After he's ready to reach out and ask you "why", you just need to keep explaining and showing that you aren't some extremist. Just don't expect that to happen the first time you bring it up.
If you can get them to the point where they're willing to listen, I suggest sharing some good episodes of Joe Rogan, like the one with James Lindsay recently. Long form content like that where it's just two guys talking and explaining how this shit works can be very persuasive.
A pretty good way to figure out which skeptics and shitlords still have worthwhile things to say seems to be to ask whether they're still on good terms with Sargon. Not saying he's some kind of genius or always right, but Sargon Derangement Syndrome is real.
Okay so what bad things has Trump actually done? And I don't mean "mostly true" fact checks that say "Trump didn't actually do x, but".
Right? Honestly if all the scientists in the world agreed tomorrow that we've passed the point of no return and the only thing we can do is come up with new technologies to protect ourselves from the consequences, that would be a godsend.
We were never going to get India or China on board with this self-flagellation and let's face it, they produce a majority of the pollution that western nations are trying so hard to prevent. So let's stop being idiots and blaming ourselves and do what we do best: innovate to fix things. The world will keep on turning, life will find a way and so should we.
What most makes me doubt this story is how uncontrolled the release was. Would they really release an engineered virus in China itself? If so, why Wuhan? Is it a rebellious region or something?
I have no problem believing that China would try to develop a flu-like virus that can do huge economic damage to their enemies - but releasing it on the Chinese population intentionally because what, they know we're cucks and would refuse to close our borders in time to prevent it going global? I think that's too much of a hail mary even for the CCP.
Regardless of whether this virus was developed or merely isolated from a population of bats, I think it's much more likely that a sample merely leaked from a lab because their standards are shit.
Didn't a majority of white women voters vote Republican in 2016? I don't think it's women so much as black women specifically.
To be fair, out of all the shirts he could have worn to represent BLM, this is not one I find much fault with. Unlike what happened with Ricardo Munoz, Rayshard Brooks or even George Floyd, this actually does appear to be a case of very bad policing where the officers responsible should be held accountable.
Does that mean BLM has a point and black people are being systematically slaughtered? Nope. Should he be allowed to wear apparel with a political message while others are not just because it supports BLM? Nope. But it seems pretty tame compared to all the other shit we've seen.
I mean if you count communism and fascism as internal to western civilization, then sure. But at that point we're not really talking about something identifiable as a particular category of civilization anymore.
WWII was an external threat. The problems we're facing now are internal. When empires fall it's usually because internal upheaval weakened them to the point of being unable to deal with external aggressors.
If anything this seems to be the peace prize slowly approaching its intended purpose.
With Obama it was for the promotion of peace in the middle east - though they jumped the gun and he never actually followed through. I mean yeah, we all know they actually nominated him for being black, but the stated reason was more a case of "but he hasn't actually done anything yet".
With Trump it'll be for promoting peace between Israel and the surrounding Islamic states - some of which have actually released statements to that effect. How much it will actually end up accomplishing remains to be seen, but it's more than Obama ever ended up doing (unless you count that terrible deal with Iran).
I'm sure that Joe doesn't want to burn bridges, but if he's actually incapable of suing Spotify for breach of contract then I think it's clear that he was blinded by the money and made a really shitty deal.