Yet more evidence that there is nothing on this planet more servile than an Apple fanboy (except perhaps Lindsey Graham).

You're as old as I am, surely you remember how well it went last time someone tried to own a number.

I predict there will be significant overlap between the people who wharrgarble about gubbermint identifiers and the mark of the beast and the people who will praise this attempt to violate medical privacy.

lol, who the fuck calls it "tech education"?

Maybe there wouldn't be a stigma against the non-degreed if there weren't so many of them who seem to believe that learning a programming language or learning a corporation's products should put them in the same category as those who learned computer science at a reputable university.

Once they no longer have any reason to restrict comments to 140 characters, Twitter could become a forum suitable for the serious discussion of the issues of the day. This could change our entire political landscape.

I'm getting tired of this new fad where people use the word "gaslighting" as a pretentious way of saying "lying", as if lying isn't negative enough.

A person is only "gaslighted" when they're not consciously aware that they're being fucked with. Only people with weak minds can be "gaslighted", which is probably why the fad of using it as jargon started in social justice circles.

We all know perfectly well that Oracle and the Trump administration are both completely full of shit, so in no sense of the word are we being "gaslighted".

I want to know what the guy with the covered trailers is doing across the street. Is that a puddle of blood? At least he put cones up.

If not, then who cares?

ISPs are not common carriers, according the same people promoting this false understanding of Section 230, so how do they rationalize social networks as common carriers? That is not, and never has been a choice available to them. Social networks are not utilities.

And Section 230 explicitly says they are not the publishers of the content contributed by others. Here's what it does say, it encourages them to moderate objectionable content by explicitly shielding them from liability for doing so:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of -

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)

What you're all really so butt-hurt about is that your political opinions are considered objectionable content by a majority of people. You spout racist gibberish, you harass women and gays, you spread falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and despite having the absolute freedom to form your own social networks where you're perfectly free to moderate comments according to your own twisted community values, you want the government to inflict a new fairness doctrine on the social networks that the cool kids already dominate. You're basically admitting that you're losers on the Internet and you want the government to help you be winners, despite being the ones who more expertly spread "memes" and propaganda.

Conversely, if it is a platform, the federal government grants it protection from legal liability as long as it does not censor the speech of its users.

No, it doesn't, you lying moron. A website can moderate anything it damn well pleases.

Learn something: https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

Conversely, if it is a platform, the federal government grants it protection from legal liability as long as it does not censor the speech of its users.

No, it doesn't, you lying moron. A website can moderate anything it damn well pleases.

Learn something: https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

ITT: morons thinking the First Amendment compels private corporations to give them a soapbox, yet somehow forgetting the right of free association.

A crazy person posting a crazy opinion on conspiratorial website is not interesting news.

Oh, no, they're going to oppress us with...

CREATE TABLE patients (patient_id integer PRIMARY KEY);

How will we survive under such tyranny?

Remember when the wackiest shit on Slashdot were the flamewars between RMS and ESR acolytes?

It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received Davidâ(TM)s one-sentence response which read in its entirety âoeI'd be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I'm precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.â

This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the worldâ(TM)s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of âoetruthâ on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.

This is the grand reveal that eight paragraphs lead up to. Snopes guy won't risk severe legal repercussions to spill dirt for a pearl-clutching gossip columnist, so the gossip columnist has a fit of the vapours.

I went looking for what ideological motives drive this guy's hate boner for Snopes, and discovered he's just a run-of-the-mill self-promoter with a sketchy history. From Leetaru's wikipedia article:

Leetaru was dismissed from the University of Illinois for academic and research misconduct. The University found Leetaru had misappropriated resources, violated copyright, and destroyed evidence of the origin of resources. Leetaru's colleagues at Pennsylvania State University spoke about their involvement with GDELT and Leetaru at the International Studies association claiming that Leetaru had produced GDELT using data stolen from the University of Illinois' SPEED project which he had been a programmer for. Schrodt alleged that Leetaru had no right to the data and had republished it under GDELT and attempted to cover up the source of the data. Phil Schrodt and John Beieler, Leetaru's former colleagues, distanced themselves from Leetaru's work and actions saying they had no knowledge of his violations of research ethics.

Leetaru filed suit against the University of Illinois alleging he was improperly dismissed from the University, but the courts rejected his complaint on jurisdictional grounds.

The study was rigged to fail. With only 500 subjects and no controlling for nutrition and educational resources, it is no surprise that they did poorly. The gened and pharma companies designed it that way, to strange the public subsidy of cognitive enhancement in the crib. They're terrified of an even playing field, even if it guaranteed billions coming their way, because it would have boostrapped the next generation right out of their dependency. A smarter populace is a less credulous populace, and their voting choices would have had consequences, bringing about the kind of change that this useful idiot can only beg for.

Approximately fifteen million children in the American Union have "unlicensed" genetic enhancements, and that number is growing every day. Studies published in the samizdat journals have shown repeatedly that they can perform at the same level as the sanctioned elite. Yet they can't participate in the "legitimate" economy, thanks to the Genetic Genuine Advantage Act, and so must eek out a living on the margins of society, or else submit to sterilization and indenture themselves to pay off their parents' "mistake". Is it any surprise so many are choosing crime, when they have no other real choice?

The ownership of DNA sequences is the real crime. The genetic property laws were designed to maintain social stratification, not end it. We will continue ignore your laws, until the day comes that we outnumber you and out-gun you, and then we make the law ourselves. You can't stop us anymore than you can stop humans from fucking.

Consumers will soon need to decide exactly how much faith they want to place in these companies to build out the internet of tomorrow.

As if people have faith in Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

Like the removal of Net Neutrality, privatizing internet infrastructure has only reduced prices for consumers.

Reduced what in the what now?

This is an "article" written by an astroturfing lobbyist. His ideology sells the belief that deregulation solves all problems, yet because he is beholden to his telecom masters, he must also sell the belief that having more competition is also bad.