akersten

54 ms·

811.
by akersten 6y ago
Ambulance chasing, frivolous lawsuit. It's literally on the very first screen of Private Browsing that it does not prevent websites from tracking you, and it's just about cleaning up your local history automatically.
812.
by akersten 6y ago
People want to talk about anti-trust and monopolies in tech? Exhibit A. ISPs are vastly more monopolistic than any internet website. In most places, you have the choice of one ISP. Two if you're lucky. Many municipal and local laws eve
813.
by akersten 6y ago
You can take a look at the videos yourself. Go on snapchat maps, click near the WH. That[0] is not "recon and visuals," that is a military helicopter intimidating US civilians on our own soil. [0]: https://s.sc-cdn.net&
814.
by akersten 6y ago
I was right, and his pandering paid off: https://i.redd.it/92r1mwmtdm151.jpg Zuckerberg's intentions are embarrassingly transparent.
815.
by akersten 6y ago
> But a private company can take action to impede everyone’s access to an official’s statements if they “suppress” those statements... Yes, that is their right to control how their website works. > that would mean Twitter has to allow
816.
by akersten 6y ago
A ruling like that makes me even more surprised that the government did not take steps to maintain net neutrality. I would say ISPs are a far more "critical pathway of communication" than Twitter is. Them taking steps to prevent T
817.
by akersten 6y ago
Part of it is genetics too - I've been cursed with deeply-pitted chewing surfaces that are prone to cavities. A sibling with the same diet was not, and has never needed a filling. One of my biggest regrets in life is getting amalgam fi
818.
by akersten 6y ago
A lot of folks[0] are saying yes, they are official statements. But I'm not a lawyer either. [0]: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=are+tru...
819.
by akersten 6y ago
Unless I'm mistaken, Twitter isn't really in the business of bulldozing houses or otherwise introducing themselves into your daily life without consent - the simile feels forced.
820.
by akersten 6y ago
> of material that the provider or user considers to be [...] otherwise objectionable, That seems like a pretty blank check for moderation to me, at least. "Otherwise objectionable" can easily be defined in a ToS, and you&#x27
821.
by akersten 6y ago
If enough people feel that it has a bias, and are discontent with it, they are free to start their own platform. They are also free to not moderate their platform, or even moderate it with whatever bias they so choose. This has happened a f
822.
by akersten 6y ago
> That protection requires that they are not editorializing content. Please cite the law that says that, because it's certainly not S230. S230 was specifically made to empower sites to moderate, editorialize, and remove content a
823.
by akersten 6y ago
I have always championed the right to free expression, whether that is an individual hosting content or a company deciding what content it wants to host and how to display it. The government should play no part in either case.
824.
by akersten 6y ago
As a government official, you cannot take action to try to impede someone's access to your official statements. That is independent of the platform, and independent of how much work someone has to do to still access the information.
825.
by akersten 6y ago
I will reemphasize an opinion I expressed on an earlier thread: this is an overtly totalitarian move designed to intimidate and suppress private entities' protected expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias (which would sti
826.
by akersten 6y ago
I mean, I even disagree that there's major 'anti-conservative' bias at all. Some prominent conservatives have been banned from the platform, like Alex Jones, but it wasn't due to their views on Keynesian economics, it
827.
by akersten 6y ago
He has no examples, it's just word salad. The premise is also false - the shield from [liability] applies regardless of the political affiliation, motivation, or actions of the platform. He's trying to convince people that Twitter
828.
by akersten 6y ago
Then he'll claim that he's being censored even more, which is probably exactly what he wants to do to rile up his supporters.
829.
by akersten 6y ago
Doesn't go far enough I think. Chrome should lie to these sites to tell them that notifications got enabled, with no prompts and no option to actually enable them. Right now, all this will do is make a user dig harder to find the magic
830.
by akersten 6y ago
No, you've misinterpreted the ruling. It is not because twitter is a "public forum" that a public official cannot block a follower, it is because the public official is a public official that they cannot block a follower.
831.
by akersten 6y ago
Hypocritical statement considering Facebook shut down all live streams from Minneapolis around 1:30 last night. They're arguing against their own ability to do that? Unlikely- sounds more like political pandering to get on the good sid
832.
by akersten 6y ago
Very dangerous rhetoric, and luckily there is close to nothing he can actually order in an executive order that would make social media companies do whatever it is he wants them to do. As usual, details are scant about what he intends. Besi
833.
by akersten 6y ago
Off topic, but that's a shame about them recommending not to prefix X- for custom headers. Their entire reason (Appendix B) is that "well, if the header eventually becomes a standard header, then there will be old apps that will o
834.
by akersten 6y ago
They tried every banal free speech absolutist claim (1st Amendment! Monopolistic collusion! Discrimination against conservatives!) and lost on all of them . A good reminder that despite the constant bombastic comments about these companies
835.
by akersten 6y ago
You are more comfortable with the government regulating what kind of trolling is legal (an actual, on its face violation of the 1st Amendment), than you are with YouTube removing a gore video for violating their community guidelines? This i
836.
by akersten 6y ago
So you're ok with porn on YouTube? What about ISIS beheadings and recruitment? Just to be clear, that is what you are proposing.
837.
by akersten 6y ago
Yep. The article is pretty comical too - somehow, being able to write a C or Java app that runs on the mainframe, and having mobile access to the mainframe terminal, means that the platform is modern!
838.
by akersten 6y ago
My mistake, it was indeed undone by the FCC rather than the courts. I could have sworn it was undone by SCOTUS, but I guess a refresher is needed every once in a while. Regardless, I think the main point from the proceedings is: it was only
839.
by akersten 6y ago
I've always mused that we could somehow recover some of the "wasted" time of sleeping. 8 hours every night - a third of a human's lifespan - is just so much time. Sadly, I've never found any positive research that t
840.
by akersten 6y ago
Those "equal time" laws, more collectively the Fairness Doctrine, was struck down as unconstitutional because it forced broadcasters to host speech they did not agree with. Why would we expect to be able to force Google to host sp

More ›