EPTto quote a movie "he appears to be saying, words."
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7504
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
to quote a movie "he appears to be saying, words." | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2656 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote: Citizen united made this all possible. We used to have a nice, controlled way to fund elections that only lasted a limited period of time. The Government had to fight with the news networks to cover the conventions because the ratings were always bad. Those were the days. When politics was the boring shit that no one wanted on their TV and candidates needed federal support just to run their bid for president. Now it is just uncontrolled money for god knows where promising god knows what. Not just citizens united. Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for the rise of the right-wing talk radio giants like Rush and Hannity. Clinton's passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major change in these regulations in almost a century, is what allowed the consolidation of many disparate forms of media under the umbrella of a single megacorp. For example, Murdoch could not have owned both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal under the old regulations. I would vote in a heartbeat for anyone who campaigned on repealing or overturning all 3 of those decisions. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2656 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: to quote a movie "he appears to be saying, words." I'm unfamiliar with this movie. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
Hoodwinked. Theirs a squirrel who talks really fast and towards the end of the movie he drinks coffee and no one can understand him because he's talking too fast. It's a good animated movie although the animation isn't that great due to age. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote: Not just citizens united. Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for the rise of the right-wing talk radio giants like Rush and Hannity. Clinton's passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major change in these regulations in almost a century, is what allowed the consolidation of many disparate forms of media under the umbrella of a single megacorp. For example, Murdoch could not have owned both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal under the old regulations. I would vote in a heartbeat for anyone who campaigned on repealing or overturning all 3 of those decisions. The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power. Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter. | ||
|
HalcyonRain
United States124 Posts
I dunno, I probably read too many books. Either way the Legislative branch will grind to a halt while they're dealing with Trump's constant "distractions". Well maybe not a halt, but certainly very slow. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2656 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote: The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power. Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter. I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2656 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:40 TheLordofAwesome wrote: So, a quick google search reveals that the largest GOP consultant group in annapolis appears to be Strategic Campaign Group. Does that group have any special significance? | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:01 TheLordofAwesome wrote: Also how dumb do you have to be to contradict yourself on such an important matter? I mean, it's one thing to lie and get caught by someone else. It's quite another to incriminate yourself. On May 12 2017 02:16 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Have Trumps supporters ever actually read an interview with him? because they make no sense https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/862654074562519040 For the love of god. The guy is so incompetent. How the fuck did he ever get so rich? I mean the railgun-type of airplane catapult is the whole selling point of the Ford class in the first place. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote: I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote: Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter. This is actually a legal problem, which you as a legal professional should know. Twitter knows the IP of the person sending those threats. ISPs know where that IP roughly belongs, which is good enough to narrow down to possible suspects, which is enough for police to investigate. It's actually stupidly easy for the "tech industry" as a whole to find someone. The problem is police jurisdiction, international borders, cost/value analysis for tracking down a single online "threat", and the difficulty of getting a warrant/subpoena/whatever to force a service provider to take private information and give it to the police. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:44 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: For the love of god. The guy is so incompetent. How the fuck did he ever get so rich? It's easy when you're born into it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: This is actually a legal problem, which you as a legal professional should know. Twitter knows the IP of the person sending those threats. ISPs know where that IP roughly belongs, which is good enough to narrow down to possible suspects, which is enough for police to investigate. It's actually stupidly easy for the "tech industry" as a whole to find someone. The problem is police jurisdiction, international borders, cost/value analysis for tracking down a single online "threat", and the difficulty of getting a warrant/subpoena/whatever to force a service provider to take private information and give it to the police. And all of that can be solved through updating regulations that governed the internet and websites, most of which were written in an era of dial up internet. My local police department shouldn’t have to get into protracted litigation with Comcast just to find out where a threatening tweet came from. Not in an era of Iphones and mandatory use of the internet to be employed. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2656 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote: It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2656 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:48 WolfintheSheep wrote: This is actually a legal problem, which you as a legal professional should know. Twitter knows the IP of the person sending those threats. ISPs know where that IP roughly belongs, which is good enough to narrow down to possible suspects, which is enough for police to investigate. It's actually stupidly easy for the "tech industry" as a whole to find someone. The problem is police jurisdiction, international borders, cost/value analysis for tracking down a single online "threat", and the difficulty of getting a warrant/subpoena/whatever to force a service provider to take private information and give it to the police. Oh I see what you are talking about now. I was thinking more in terms of cracking something like TOR, which is beyond the technical ability of most US law enforcement agencies. You would need the NSA or FBI. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:44 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: For the love of god. The guy is so incompetent. How the fuck did he ever get so rich? Dad's inheritance, government bribes, reckless debt, criminal partners and bad faith negotiation. He's a conman to his very core, and it was all very predictable. See The Making of Donald Trump. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2656 Posts
The reporting earlier about the consulting group would seem to confirm this. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote: Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2656 Posts
On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote: Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. | ||
| ||
