Comment Re:No one more fragile (Score 1) 282
Funny how a post calling Republicans fragile is marked as 4 insightful while a post which disagrees with it is marked as troll. Troll moderation shouldn't be used as a "I don't agree with you" response.
Funny how a post calling Republicans fragile is marked as 4 insightful while a post which disagrees with it is marked as troll. Troll moderation shouldn't be used as a "I don't agree with you" response.
I already have too many Streaming Subscriptions as it is.
I have had a Netflix subscription since all they did was snailmail DVDs to people. Long before I purchased my first Set Top Box.
Month after Month, Year after Year. Never once shared my Password.
If that's how they choose to reward my unflinching loyalty:
FUCK 'EM!
Buh-Bye.
The title was clickbait; the summary makes it much clearer. People who signed up through the App will need to update their payment method. These customers do not need to change their package.
If they censor anything (other than illegal content), then the platform becomes liable for user comments.
Plenty of not illegal content can completely and utterly destroy your site.
Yet by moderating you can open yourself up to losing 230 protection.
This seems pretty easy.
Something along the lines using the existing 230 clause in the laws.
If a company allows for user posts freely (except for outright criminal content like CP), without use of algorithms, etc....they they are protected by the 230 provisions as they are today. Basically codifying that type set up to be common carrier type businesses like the phone company.
IF, the company wants to shape conversation, intervene for points of view, use algorithms that suppress some content and favor others...then those should lose the 230 protections and then they will be more or less exactly like editorial media like newspapers, etc. (Much like they claim they are).
I know the details will be more of a problem to sort out, but basically there's the answer.
These companies CAN have exactly what they want...it's just that not all of that is 230 protected.
230 was a great idea, at the early onset of the internet, it allowed it to grow and spread.
However, 230 protection for everything is outdated and needs to be reigned in.
This is my understanding. If they censor anything (other than illegal content), then the platform becomes liable for user comments.
Than republicans. Help government I don't like what I see on social media! Do something!
Not 100% true. The GOP doesn't like the liberal slant of social media moderation. This limits what potential "converts" (for lack of a better word) see. This diminishes contributions and votes. As an individual, if I don't like what's posted, I can go to a different platform; the party can't afford to do that.
Seems to me like that all makes sense. Is anyone *really* that worked out that they can't launch a web page from a home page icon on their iOS device anyway? I know there are going to be special cases out there (like corporate issued phones that use some web app the employer built). But wow -- I haven't used a web app on my iPhone since the original iPhone was released and only allowed those to start with!
My young children take piano. They access one website to view videos and materials and another site to record their practicing. Based on the age of my children, it was convenient to put bookmarks on their home screen. I would have to read the actual verbiage of the law to see if simple bookmarks on the home screen would be allowed. Of course I live in the USA, so this shouldn't affect me.
You can't even buy generic cola that tastes exactly like Coke, and that's entirely man-made to begin with. While there certainly is room in the marketplace for lab grown meat, it will never taste exactly like the real thing. Besides, even among the real stuff there's significant variation in quality; I'm not even sure how this stuff passes as suitable for human consumption, and that's ostensibly from the same animal as filet mignon.
Walmart is known to add a saline solution to ground beef to preserve the color (make it look fresher longer). If an animal died to give you food, the least you could do is treat the meat with respect.
First the disclaimer that I don't live in California and don't visit there very often. My state does have stretches on interstate highway with a posted limit of 80, with traffic really going 85 or 90. This California bill would affect me if I were to buy a vehicle manufactured in California or originally meant for the California market. I would either be a safety hazard for going too slow or manually disable the system every time I get on that stretch of highway. Not cool if a California law intefers with drivers in the other 49 states (plus DC). My van already has a configuration where it displays a warning when going over a certain speed (user configurable). My van won't override my accelerator or apply the brakes; just a red speed warning where the digital speed would normally be displayed (the analog speedometer still displays the correct speed).
Other posters mention using GPS to dynamically determine the speed limit. As pointed out by others, GPS and map data isn't 100% reliable. It can take years for map data to be updated, and commercial GPS could be off by a 3 to 5 meters radius when traveling at highway speed. And what happens when signal is lost?
Should adults be denied access to pornography?
Adults wouldn't be denied access to pornography, provided they are willing to verify their age.
Its not the same. Showing ID at a bar or adult bookstore does not provide a permanent record, giving a website your ID does. The problem is that what is called "age verification" is really identification. In principal there are technical ways to verify age without providing any permanent record, but the porn companies quite reasonably do not want to be responsible for securing that information because they know how difficult it is to do that correctly.
This is the crux, isn't it? How to do proper age verification which isn't easily hacked or spoofed, can easily be verified, and doesn't store a permanent record of the ID used.
How would you implement it? Have authorities and customers of the authorities get certificates to show to sites? That would make these authorities quite the target for someone looking for blackmail material.
Sure, some porn might be very dark and illegal, but in that same regard much of it is legal and educational.
It is illegal to show porn to minors.
no something of value was lost, you're just being overly myopic. the government has no right to censor what people can or cannot see in their own home. Putting an age restriction/verification is a privacy shit-show and a form of censorship.
First porn, then what? Dissenting views? (of course they'd gussy it up as "fake news" or "misinformation" -- but the result is the same)
There are laws requiring age verification to purchase pornographic material in the real world. It is illegal to show pornography to minors. These laws require sites to verify age before showing porn to their visitors. This is a reasonable request, but often poorly implemented. I would imagine most users would not want their real name associated with such sites. Would you trust such a site with an uploaded copy of your drivers license?
Perhaps converting to USB-C was so intense for them they didn't have time to incubate new features or updates
I'm fine with product placement. It's intrusive ads that actively stop me from watching the content that irks me.
It's a matter of how invasive the ad is. If a product has an overly intrusive ad (whether product placement or commercial break), I avoid that product. I understand that studios need money to create content. If I'm using a free resource (OTA tv / OTA radio / free web site) I expect to be monetized somehow. If I'm already paying a premium subscription, ads leave a bad taste in my mouth and turn me off the service. Last month my son asked for a "free" game on his tablet. Reading up, it seems there is 1 minute of ads per 5 minutes of game play.
I thought this was more about the animals
Perhaps. But the vegans I know have no interest in vat meat.
The plant-based meat alternatives for beef and pork are subpar, but plant-based chicken is pretty good.
I'm not sure there's a market for vat meat even if it could be reasonably priced. Who are the potential customers?
Right now chicken breasts are $2/pound at the supermarket. They'd have to charge a lot less than that to be viable
Ask yourself why are people vegan or vegetarian. How many would consume meat if it were possible to do so without the inhumane treatment and living conditions? Vat meat promises "real" meat without an animal losing its life. This kind of moral superiority could support a price similar to organic meat. Is this a large enough niche to become financially viable?
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood
