someonelse17

4 ms·

1.
by someonelse17 8y ago
They're not held legally accountable for political views. The copyright stuff applies to everyone already.
2.
by someonelse17 8y ago
It's debatable if the China thing applies, in any case congressional committees need not interfere.
3.
by someonelse17 8y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
4.
by someonelse17 8y ago
I'm not talking about Silicon Valley, I'm talking about all other industries in all countries, most Silicon Valley companies are banned in China, stop vilifying Silicon Valley. I'm sure these organizations are great and are d
5.
by someonelse17 8y ago
I don't see a unique human rights angel here, there are many companies doing business with China and a number of other "iffy" governments, if congress was truly alarmed by that they could sanction these companies. This thing
6.
by someonelse17 8y ago
What you want and what the law allows are different things, also just don't let any entity control how you think. As for 'being held accountable' as publisher, I'm sure you're aware of many publishers that favor one
7.
by someonelse17 8y ago
I don't know about the prevalence of other opinions but what I'm suggesting (and there are many legal precedents to support this) is that the first amendment shields them from this nonsense as well as any antitrust allegations and
8.
by someonelse17 8y ago
I'm not sure what's behind the recent prevalence to this theory but that is false. Also we should all want section 230 protection it's what preserves free speech online and the principle on which the whole web economy is buil
9.
by someonelse17 8y ago
The politics of private citizens are their own business and explicitly not the government's. Furthermore even if that had any bearing on their search results whatever google presents on their own damn website is also none of the govern
10.
by someonelse17 8y ago
Convening a hearing on a specific subject (silly as it as in this case) then making it an open season for all other grievances is another despicable aspect of these hearings.
11.
by someonelse17 8y ago
"to discuss concerns that the search engine giant is biased against conservatives" ffs.
12.
FOSTA Provides Another Tool for Silencing People You Dislike(techdirt.com)
3 points by someonelse17 8y ago|0 comments
13.
Unintended Consequences: How the GDPR Can Undermine Privacy(techdirt.com)
43 points by someonelse17 8y ago|48 comments
14.
WhatsApp Isn't the Cuplrut in India's Mob Violence(theatlantic.com)
1 points by someonelse17 8y ago|0 comments
15.
by someonelse17 8y ago
Define "getting cozy" in this context and please explain why a public hearing is in any way better than a private one or even just exchanging correspondence.
16.
by someonelse17 8y ago
If it was truly about policy they would have accepted the lawyer, it's theatrics and grandstanding and campaigning from that dais.
17.
by someonelse17 8y ago
I don't think it was warranted in that case either, it was an exicise in public humiliation, a bunch of people who never created anything getting off on talking down to someone much better than them.
18.
by someonelse17 8y ago
Unless it's illegal it's none of their business.
19.
by someonelse17 8y ago
Google offered their top lawyer for the senate hearing but they rejected him, I guessing it's because they needed CEOs in order to maximize the pleasure from their exercise in public humiliation. The whole thing about snubbed senators
20.
Chrome 69 sign in indicator is just that, it doesn't autosync local data(twitter.com)
1 points by someonelse17 8y ago|0 comments
21.
White House distances itself from reports about EO targeting Facebook, Google(washingtonpost.com)
1 points by someonelse17 8y ago|0 comments
22.
by someonelse17 8y ago
I also would like to have my cake and eat it.
23.
by someonelse17 8y ago
Leak what? It says so in the permission screen when a user chooses to grant access.