sadris

10 ms·

61.
by sadris 7y ago
Yes. I believe they shifted to putting it in your car in driveway
62.
by sadris 7y ago
Clear violation of federal Civil Rights Act. Gender and race cannot be factors in employment. Why waste time with blatantly unlawful legislation?
63.
by sadris 7y ago
The use policy explicitly states that they don't want this site to become a political message board.
64.
by sadris 7y ago
Scotland, maybe?
65.
by sadris 7y ago
We don't butcher sewer rats for food in the US...
66.
by sadris 7y ago
Makes sense. HR firms have known for decades it's a net negative. Note that this is generally within departments only, not within the entire organization. > Williams and O’Reilly (1996) review dozens of studies showing that ethnic d
67.
by sadris 8y ago
The UK is doing much worse https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1116005544236650496?s...
68.
by sadris 8y ago
There is an appellate court case pending involving Google and foreign court orders. Depending on how is decided is the answer to your question. Edit: no they do not need to remove content because a foreign entity asked them to https:&#x2F
69.
by sadris 8y ago
> Yet Black Lives Matter was treated with far more disdain and had a considerably stronger and disproportionate response to their activism. When was this?
70.
by sadris 8y ago
It's not? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3243945/ > We find substantial evidence that immigration by foreign-trained nurses increases the supply of nurses and that this increase in suppl
71.
by sadris 8y ago
Gab expected it too. They even instituted anti-hate-speech code into their Dissenter backend, but it was still banned by Mozilla.
72.
by sadris 8y ago
It could get to the floor via a discharge petition. But Democrats are currently pro censorship so that sort of language would never get into the bill.
73.
by sadris 8y ago
If it included anti censorship aspects they could get some GOP support from Cruz.
74.
by sadris 8y ago
That's it. If the government regulated Facebook, the rest of the world would have access to freedom of speech finally. The us govt cannot regulate speech.
75.
by sadris 8y ago
They could fire them? They're paid for their labor, not their opinions.
76.
by sadris 8y ago
Think their law applies to homosexuals, not transexuals.
77.
by sadris 8y ago
Well that's one way to not have any Facebook servers or employees in your country.
78.
by sadris 8y ago
> Require that service providers, regardless of size(1), keep hate speech off their platforms. This includes calls for the establishment of ethnostates Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Now how can your proposed policy reconcile this?
79.
by sadris 8y ago
If discrimination was disallowed for your personal opinions, then this might be a valid argument.
80.
by sadris 8y ago
People sometimes take a loan to purchase a restaurant, only to have regulations change and make the business non-profitable. Life is full of disappointment.
81.
by sadris 8y ago
> because even unmoderated unreviewed content will carry far higher risk of liability than today If it as OP says, the opposite would be true. Either moderate and risk liability. Or allow anything and get indemnity.
82.
by sadris 8y ago
They should have done weight verification.
83.
by sadris 8y ago
If these companies had a spine, they would fire any employees under jurisdiction of Australia and move any hardware out of the country.
84.
by sadris 8y ago
Just only release for iPhone :)
85.
by sadris 8y ago
I had 90% piracy rate on Android when I did it years ago. Gave up and didn't look back.
86.
by sadris 8y ago
What's wrong and what's right? Who defines it? When? And why?
87.
by sadris 8y ago
Greece. http://time.com/3956017/greece-bailout-selloff/
88.
by sadris 8y ago
We as a society decided homosexual advocacy was dangerous speech just decades ago. We were so enlightened then, right?
89.
by sadris 8y ago
They could just buy land from a country and it wouldn't require what you claim.
90.
by sadris 8y ago
It is in at least seven states including California.

More ›