Every government that is in deficit, and every individual in that government who calls for proprietary software, should be forced to write a 100 page essay on why our unborn great grandkids should be forced to buy Windows 11 and SharePoint for us. Every year.
Same Toronto police service that said to comply with home invaders.
We need to get rid of that red Tory in charge and get a mike Harris back.
We need to get rid of that red Tory in charge and get a mike Harris back.
Just because Trump isn't president doesn't mean the numbers are suddenly trustworthy. I think most people with jobs and grocery bills still feel squeezed.
As far as I'm concerned, activism funded by taxpayer dollars should be illegal.
Imagine how insane it is to pay yourself to convince yourself to do something that you want to do. I can't imagine anything much more wasteful.
Imagine how insane it is to pay yourself to convince yourself to do something that you want to do. I can't imagine anything much more wasteful.
oh no now countless worthless corpo meetings that couldn't have been resheduled for after Jan 1 will have to be rescheduled for after Jan 1.
The history of section 230 is that prior to 230 it was the law of the land that most internet services were not moderated at all and therefore the people operating the services had limited liability for anything posted on them unless and until it was reported.
There was one early case involving compuserve, and because that server and didn't moderate editorial, they were treated like a newsstand that sells newspapers other people published, and so CompuServe was not liable for the individual things written by the posters. By contrast, There was a case involving Prodigy I think, where the service claimed to be moderated and thus safer for young people to go on to. This opened them up to liability because they asserted editorial moderation and some of the content they allowed through was found to be defamatory. Therefore, the state of the internet prior to section 230 was this: limited editorial moderation which limited liability for the things said, or editorial moderation where the website provider took on the liability for the things that were posted and also took on liability for damages when they moderate.
If suction 230 were to be removed, this would be the way things would go back to. Legally, if you never made any pretenses of moderation, you would be protected from the individual things that people post. And if you did choose to moderate, you would be personally responsible for everything that was posted on your website.
This is why a lot of free speech people were pushing for the abolishment of section 230 altogether, because at that point either everything becomes usenet again and largely unmoderated for editorial, for what remains becomes so fully locked down it would no longer be interactive. In other words, individuals who believe that abolishing section 230 would result in moderation that they like becoming the norm are likely incorrect. The more likely result would be that once section 230 was removed, remaining services that didn't immediately lock down would not have any editorial controls at all.
But I should tell you that if you are on the political left, there's an awful lot of stuff that would immediately get taken down because no company would want to potentially be treated as the speaker of a lot of that speech. In particular, accusations that a certain company did X or that a certain individual did Y would almost certainly be banned out right because the company's running the platforms would not want to be "saying" such things in court.
Of course on the political right there would be a lot of stuff taken down too, but not the stuff most lefties would want. Legally, there's generally nothing wrong with what is called hate speech, at least not in the United States. Therefore, we're talking about a certain company dumping talk to chemicals into a river maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, or making statements of fact about a certain politician maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, you can legally talk about your opinions on different races all day long.
A lot of politically neutral services would likely be up in the air as well. Things like recommendation algorithms or monetization decisions could have to change to accommodate the elimination of section 230 and the resulting legal regime.
There was one early case involving compuserve, and because that server and didn't moderate editorial, they were treated like a newsstand that sells newspapers other people published, and so CompuServe was not liable for the individual things written by the posters. By contrast, There was a case involving Prodigy I think, where the service claimed to be moderated and thus safer for young people to go on to. This opened them up to liability because they asserted editorial moderation and some of the content they allowed through was found to be defamatory. Therefore, the state of the internet prior to section 230 was this: limited editorial moderation which limited liability for the things said, or editorial moderation where the website provider took on the liability for the things that were posted and also took on liability for damages when they moderate.
If suction 230 were to be removed, this would be the way things would go back to. Legally, if you never made any pretenses of moderation, you would be protected from the individual things that people post. And if you did choose to moderate, you would be personally responsible for everything that was posted on your website.
This is why a lot of free speech people were pushing for the abolishment of section 230 altogether, because at that point either everything becomes usenet again and largely unmoderated for editorial, for what remains becomes so fully locked down it would no longer be interactive. In other words, individuals who believe that abolishing section 230 would result in moderation that they like becoming the norm are likely incorrect. The more likely result would be that once section 230 was removed, remaining services that didn't immediately lock down would not have any editorial controls at all.
But I should tell you that if you are on the political left, there's an awful lot of stuff that would immediately get taken down because no company would want to potentially be treated as the speaker of a lot of that speech. In particular, accusations that a certain company did X or that a certain individual did Y would almost certainly be banned out right because the company's running the platforms would not want to be "saying" such things in court.
Of course on the political right there would be a lot of stuff taken down too, but not the stuff most lefties would want. Legally, there's generally nothing wrong with what is called hate speech, at least not in the United States. Therefore, we're talking about a certain company dumping talk to chemicals into a river maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, or making statements of fact about a certain politician maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, you can legally talk about your opinions on different races all day long.
A lot of politically neutral services would likely be up in the air as well. Things like recommendation algorithms or monetization decisions could have to change to accommodate the elimination of section 230 and the resulting legal regime.
From a superpositional standpoint it's pretty obvious.
People support the police because they do a bunch of things that people do respect and want. If there's murder to be solved, people want the police to be in there. If your house gets robbed, they want the police to come find the guy who did it and lock them up.
At their best, police are protecting people's individual rights from being infringed by others.
People hate the police state because instead of providing basic order and thereby protecting people's rights, they end up using the pretext of order to harm people's individual rights on behalf of the government system.
In a sense, it's similar to left wing arguments against guns: the tool can be misused and often is so we should eliminate the thing. There's a nice first order logic to it, but we live in a multiple order world with multiple effects to an action.
Of course, it could be that having a tool like the police will inevitably mean it gets corrupted and break it's mandate, and that may be true too. Power corrupts, after all.
But it's also true that without some force capable of using force to enforce societal norms, someone else will come in and use force to enforce whatever they want and thus use of force is required.
Does that have to look like contemporary police forces? Not necessarily, but I don't think people who support police are necessarily so fixated on a specific form.
I do think a healthy society is one with mechanisms other than violent enforcement of norms to maintain order. A healthy society has cultural norms and mores, values and concepts such as honor or guilt that serve to get people to act in ways that don't need enforcement in the first place.
People support the police because they do a bunch of things that people do respect and want. If there's murder to be solved, people want the police to be in there. If your house gets robbed, they want the police to come find the guy who did it and lock them up.
At their best, police are protecting people's individual rights from being infringed by others.
People hate the police state because instead of providing basic order and thereby protecting people's rights, they end up using the pretext of order to harm people's individual rights on behalf of the government system.
In a sense, it's similar to left wing arguments against guns: the tool can be misused and often is so we should eliminate the thing. There's a nice first order logic to it, but we live in a multiple order world with multiple effects to an action.
Of course, it could be that having a tool like the police will inevitably mean it gets corrupted and break it's mandate, and that may be true too. Power corrupts, after all.
But it's also true that without some force capable of using force to enforce societal norms, someone else will come in and use force to enforce whatever they want and thus use of force is required.
Does that have to look like contemporary police forces? Not necessarily, but I don't think people who support police are necessarily so fixated on a specific form.
I do think a healthy society is one with mechanisms other than violent enforcement of norms to maintain order. A healthy society has cultural norms and mores, values and concepts such as honor or guilt that serve to get people to act in ways that don't need enforcement in the first place.
One of my favorite facts is that if your kid is yellow they put your kid in blue.
I really think about the amount hospitals probably charge to blue the yellow out of your kid.
I really think about the amount hospitals probably charge to blue the yellow out of your kid.
My first vehicle was an '83 Bronco II that was long past its prime, it didn't have the foot switch, but I'm pretty sure late 70s F150s and the like would have had them. The Bronco II wasn't based on the F150 platform but the ranger, so it already did a lot differently.
If the management wants to mandate minimum tip, they should just increase food prices by 25% and give it to the workers. After all, they're not the boss of their customers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRrVOfOU9qE
Interesting, using a rotating blade to 3d print metal on an ender3.
Interesting, using a rotating blade to 3d print metal on an ender3.
I bought my current laptop a shocking 7 years ago in 2018, and what's kinda nuts is it's even still just fine for most gaming. I need to take it apart and clean out the fans and repaste the heatsinks, but that's it.
Return to the moon, pay for it by taking the moon rover back and selling it to billionaires.
Good news though! If you say something the regime doesn't like on Facebook the police can immediately find you! Just think about how much safer we are!
It's the place where your video games live. People should treat it exactly like what it is and nothing more.
Well I hope that he enjoys his suspended sentence with no jail time. I hope that will help him learn his lesson.