Take Section 230 away from this pustule, and FB will quickly change is business model. In this country, there are no only two industries that are immune from civil suits when they cause completely foreseeable harm, social media platforms and gun manufacturers.
We subsidize Mark Zuckerberg's wealth by allowing him to run a libel factory without the need for liability insurance to cover the harm the little worm causes. Why? Power in the hands of grade 1 narcissists is a very dangerous thing.
Repeal immunity from gun manufacturers and Smith and Wesson will be bankrupted by lawsuits by victims of their products, used exactly as they were designed.
Repeal 230 and insurers won't sell Zuck insurance until he tries to do business without all the lying. That's how it is for newspapers. That's how it should be for the boy wonder.
And then sites like Yr Wonkette really will no longer allow comments, because they can't afford the liability when some intemperate soul on here makes some libelous or even vaguely threatening remark.
But I was thinking they just stole these "concerns" from the Left. Like when I used to work at Amnesty International and Russia was getting pelted with letters asking why Mr. X So and So was being held in such a place in Siberia without being charged and not getting his medicine and demanding his release. One day a bunch of letters from Russian school children arrived saying "please let those poor negroes out of jail. They didn't do anything wrong and didn't have a job." So I mean, partly they were serious and had no other ideas but partly they were assured of being able to act totally self-righteous on these certain ACLU-type issues.
Ohhhh, that’s what that’s about. Thank you. Yep, a bunch of things rely on insurance companies requiring companies, etc to be run in a competent manner.
No freaking idea. The canned message from FB was that it was flagged as "harassment." We goof on each other all the time. Why that day? Who knows. Maybe Flag-bot needed a shot of WD-40.
My point was: "Conservatism" (of the William F. Buckley variety) literally *cannot* have any "positive" content - in that it is explicitly premised on looking at whatever is happening at any given point in time, and reflexively screeching "OH NO YOU DON'T!"
Women stepping outside the stereotypical "feminine" gender doles?
LGBT coming "out of the closet"?PoC refusing to "keep their place"?
Whatever the topic might happen to be, Buckley-style "conservatism" *must* inevitably degenerate into a mere "politics of nostalgia" because it is fundamentally backward-looking.
It doesn't matter that many (if not most) of the postiions they try to "defend" are basically indefensible - the mere fact that they were "traditional is enough for "Conservatism" of that sort, and everything else is basically window-dressing.
That sort of "movement" *must* inevitably deteriorate into the incoherent mess of xenophobia and moral panic that Trump exploited with his "Make American great AGAIN" and "take our country BACK" talking-points.
well, they have just made a deal with the govt so we'll see what happens
Ta, SER.
"Age is meaningless"? Wait until your knees give out and you live on the second floor. .
Take Section 230 away from this pustule, and FB will quickly change is business model. In this country, there are no only two industries that are immune from civil suits when they cause completely foreseeable harm, social media platforms and gun manufacturers.
We subsidize Mark Zuckerberg's wealth by allowing him to run a libel factory without the need for liability insurance to cover the harm the little worm causes. Why? Power in the hands of grade 1 narcissists is a very dangerous thing.
Repeal immunity from gun manufacturers and Smith and Wesson will be bankrupted by lawsuits by victims of their products, used exactly as they were designed.
Repeal 230 and insurers won't sell Zuck insurance until he tries to do business without all the lying. That's how it is for newspapers. That's how it should be for the boy wonder.
And then sites like Yr Wonkette really will no longer allow comments, because they can't afford the liability when some intemperate soul on here makes some libelous or even vaguely threatening remark.
The net wasn't a sewer of lying when Section 230 was passed. Commenting wasn't a blood sport then. Pre-FB and Twitter, Section 230 was not a problem.
But I was thinking they just stole these "concerns" from the Left. Like when I used to work at Amnesty International and Russia was getting pelted with letters asking why Mr. X So and So was being held in such a place in Siberia without being charged and not getting his medicine and demanding his release. One day a bunch of letters from Russian school children arrived saying "please let those poor negroes out of jail. They didn't do anything wrong and didn't have a job." So I mean, partly they were serious and had no other ideas but partly they were assured of being able to act totally self-righteous on these certain ACLU-type issues.
That image at the top of the post- Jayzuss, and we thought Mittens was robotic!
Ohhhh, that’s what that’s about. Thank you. Yep, a bunch of things rely on insurance companies requiring companies, etc to be run in a competent manner.
No. Also the interface is horrible.
Devoted to Two-Face-Book ...?? Yer fooling yourself... https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
No freaking idea. The canned message from FB was that it was flagged as "harassment." We goof on each other all the time. Why that day? Who knows. Maybe Flag-bot needed a shot of WD-40.
My point was: "Conservatism" (of the William F. Buckley variety) literally *cannot* have any "positive" content - in that it is explicitly premised on looking at whatever is happening at any given point in time, and reflexively screeching "OH NO YOU DON'T!"
Women stepping outside the stereotypical "feminine" gender doles?
LGBT coming "out of the closet"?PoC refusing to "keep their place"?
Whatever the topic might happen to be, Buckley-style "conservatism" *must* inevitably degenerate into a mere "politics of nostalgia" because it is fundamentally backward-looking.
It doesn't matter that many (if not most) of the postiions they try to "defend" are basically indefensible - the mere fact that they were "traditional is enough for "Conservatism" of that sort, and everything else is basically window-dressing.
That sort of "movement" *must* inevitably deteriorate into the incoherent mess of xenophobia and moral panic that Trump exploited with his "Make American great AGAIN" and "take our country BACK" talking-points.
That's all they have.
Sci-fi writers, sociologists and futurists warned us about FB for decades, luckily I was paying attention.
I think we're the smart ones. My life is waaaay less complicated. And I don't use a smart phone either...
When I see Zuckerberg's waxy visage I hear a series of sounds: Derp! Derp! Sproing! Derp! Derp! Derp! Derp!
I did not know ^^^any^^^ of this.