There is two problems with this argument:1. That ship is already sailed out of port due to the EU. They already have a copyright directive in place that binds up all but the biggest players, and they are already looking into expanding to 'hate speech' territory, and there is no 230 to protect them there. And 2. it is a black and white fallacy, assuming that any alternative to 230's excessively broad protections is to completely remove protections. This is just not the case. While there are certainly those wanting the protection completely removed (and in light 1 we may actually reach the point where it may become moot), but every formal proposal to rein in 230 is exactly that, a reining in of the unlimited protection given by it but still providing some protection. 230 in principle wasn't a bad idea, but like many a law, it just was drafted without full consideration of all the ramifications and nuances.

It doesn't matter if that specific ride or area is busy. They don't get money by the ride, they get money as a function of admission to the park as a whole so you have to look at the whole park's performance. These particular rides and areas can be doing well, but the park as a whole can still be under performing.

While I totally agree that this reeks of the US pulling some real sleazy stuff here, my understanding is the reason they are claiming legal distinction is because they claim that Assange coached the actual leaker on how to get and info. To me that still shouldn't matter as Assange didn't actually do the hacking.

I distinctly remember a SMB knock off on my C64 decades ago. I didn't even know it was a knock off till I played the original.

I suspect many are defensive on this as this topic is littered with misinformation from activists. This isn't the first study to come out against it, but I hesitate to call those studies as they were basically propaganda that didn't hold up on closer inspection. I've already seen enough here on this study to highly question it and I have no horses in this race.

No, the real problem is hate speech is totally subjective. People can find the exact same statement innocuous or hateful so it is no shock that computers can't figure it out as we can't figure it out. Hell, just look at the most recent 'monkey it up' controversy. Many see this as a highly racist and hateful statement. Others see no racism in it at all. And this why people say it doesn't exist as they say there is no objective standard for such, and there isn't. Now, I don't think that logic follows, but there is a truth to it that policies and laws shouldn't be made around such incredibly subjective things. It would be like making a law that only beautiful paintings should be displayed. Sure lots will agree X painting is beautiful, but lots won't as well.

If you truly have no data cap, then it could be considered unlimited. However, it is very likely you actually do have a datacap, it is just rather large and not well known. My ISP for instance, last I checked, gives us a 500 GB/month allowance with a couple 100 GB/month overflows with extra charges, but you never hear about it in any of the advertising. You have to dig into your agreement, or their website to find out about such.

My thought exactly. What does this have to do with net neutrality? There is no guarantee of speed in net neutrality, only that any valid network request will be given equal access to the system. If you're throttled across the board it is still neutral. Hell, one could easily argue that net neutrality would be a BAD thing here as it is easy to argue that emergency services should be given preferential access to the network (although in this case they obviously weren't, but in general).

It's not necessarily shenanigan's even then, just a conflict of rules and goals, a very common thing in governing. It is actually quite rare when pushing one principle does not force compromises in others. Something always has to give. Here the conflict seems to be between making the rule making process transparent verses the privacy of the individuals in the studies. Both a things to strive for, but they are directly at odds here.

Ah... no. That would only hold true if the groups in comparison were known to be otherwise identical in distribution of all traits, something we DEFINITELY know is not true between sexes (hell it doesn't hold for pretty much all demographic group comparisons). It is impossible to tell from these aggregate statistics if any discrimination is going on or not precisely because of this. In fact, these exact same statistics could be equally well argued to show the demographics are not equivalent. That's the problem. These are useless numbers to use to look for discrimination.

That's what I'm leaning to at the moment too. Power of suggestion is not to be underestimated.

Well, the Internet Explorer case shows that having the technical ability to install other products does not negate the anti-trust issues. Also, Google is already in the social media biz so this could easily be argued to be them using their Android position to push out competition in the social media sphere. I'm sure Google will counter argue they carry many other competitors in their store in their defense though. Whether that will hold up though is questionable.

At one time I might have put up a defense for them, but not anymore. Far too much BS coming out of Google these days, and they good and cleanly shot themselves in both their feet with the Memo fiasco.

Yep, this exactly. It is also important to note diversity and equality are OPPOSING objectives. An absolutely equal society would have no diversity at all. An absolutely diverse society would have no real equality. While these two objectives can meet in the middle and shakes hands for good effect, pushing for both simultaneously doesn't even make logical sense.

Considering IT was a relatively new field in 1978, at least compared to now, this change doesn't really mean anything. It is just as possible that the young field looked interesting enough to attract women, but as it grew the requirements of the field and changes in the needs of such could have shifted altering the demographics of who was most interested in it. Things that are young tend to undergo rapid change like this, and it isn't unexpected or nefarious. That doesn't mean there isn't an issue, just that pointing to this difference means nothing by itself.