Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:We knew this going in (Score 1) 425

"The only reason we're pretending is so China will stop letting Russia transport military supplies through their territory to North Vietnam. Talk about outdated."
Really? That's the only reason you can think of? Off the top of my head:
- The Chinese now have practical guidance to how to push Trump's buttons in relation to US foreign policy stances towards China. They could, if they wished, put a hundred clever people in a room with the sole task of spending the next three months building a plan of action for taking advantage of that
- China could choose to make life difficult for US companies, both overtly and covertly, in response
- China could bring North Korea into play as a lever
- China could disengage from the US and turn towards other economies
etc etc

Comment Re:Go ahead. (Score 1) 1054

Incidentally, I'm terribly interested in understanding what meaningful difference you see between someone being a Trump supporter and someone who happens to support Trump. So far as I can see, you've just added in a "happens" as though it was random chance or an external agency that made someone support Trump, but no doubt it means something profound to you.

Comment Re:Go ahead. (Score 1) 1054

Oh nonsense. We all, individuals and companies, judge people for words and acts all the time, including platform granting and denial. I'm sure we all are fabulously multidimensional, but that doesn't give us a free pass from having consequences applied to our behaviour, whether we like it or not -- and whether the behaviour is about whether to grant / withdraw a platform or what we choose to say when using such platforms.

If Twitter gets this wrong, they'll suffer the consequences as you say, but frankly I heartily doubt it. They're much more concerned about being seen as a platform for hateful speech at present, because they see that as driving away more people.

Comment Re:Go ahead. (Score 1) 1054

In what way is it a stupid idea? They are doing it to avoid advertisers and users migrating away from their platform. Obviously, they have to weigh up Trump supporters and others leaving in outrage at the ban, vs others leaving in outrage at the lack of a ban. It's not clear that one group is self-evidently larger than the other. And who knows, maybe the weighing up is made easier by the political and moral beliefs of the decision-makers. So be it: they're running a private company, not providing a public service.

Comment Re:Twitter, aka @Jack, doesn't care about hate spe (Score 1) 1054

Since you're continuing to be obtuse about this, let me spell it out for you. Many gay couples want, and can, have children, through a multiplicity of routes, including adoption, surrogacy, complex family arrangements etc. Laws which would forbid this would be a bad thing. The right to have children thus matters, whether an individual has a womb or does not.

Comment Re:Responsibilities of a publicly traded company (Score 1) 1054

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the shareholders look at how the rules are being applied, and are content that it's being done in a way that best protects their commercial interests?

Perhaps they don't really care about being taken seriously by the likes of you? Perhaps you feel that's very rude and unfair of them. Cry me a river. It's a private entity. They don't need to give two shits about your views (or mine), so long as they stay within the law.

Perhaps you're right and their application of the laws will put off users and cause them to go bust. Or perhaps you're wrong, and it will turn out to be a brilliant commercial move. Who knows? But you know, if you're jolly cross about how they run themselves, you can always set up your own platform, and attract people to it by its fearless championing of free speech. Oh wait, no need: there's Breitbart.

Comment Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score 2) 1054

Liberalists (great neologism, there) basically don't say anything of the sort. Rightists say that liberalists say this shit to get themselves all steamed up and cross about liberalists, but like very large amounts of other things that rightists believe, there's no materially significant factual basis to it. For example, Twitter is, you may be astounded to find out, not in fact a font of liberalism but a commercial company whose services are used by large numbers of people of all political persuasions.

Comment Re:Go ahead. (Score 1) 1054

How this kind of comment gets marked insightful is beyond me. Twitter isn't trying to solve everything, obviously. Twitter is trying to protect its commercial interests. This includes setting rules for how its services get used, and enforcing them. Don't like the rules? Cry me a river. It's their house. Go set up your own soap-box on another corner of the internet instead.

Slashdot Top Deals

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Working...