Let us think for a moment on last century's media paradigm:
A first-class lane for content "streamed" in full-color to the home--cable tv
and a second-class lane for people to use to contact their equals and "betters"--telephone.
Now, contrast with the internet: Everybody has a voice.
Any citizen can speak out on any available platform and be seen by very nearly the entirely world. Or at least, a majority of our countrymen.
In this context, let us ask again, why would politicians (or those behind them) want to put an end to Section 230 for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
To quote Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality: "To understand the object of an obscure plot, observe its consequences and ask who might have intended them."
In my opinion, somebody is playing a long game in an attempt to return to the status quo of the few having the power to broadcast, and the many having only what little they are allowed.
|Bethesda... will be best.
Allow me to reply with an honest and heartfelt rebuttal based upon decades of experience and interaction with Bethesda products:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha he he ha ha!! Snort giggle tee-hee oh gawd, my sides... I can't breathe...
Thank you, that is all.
also, i (mostly) love reading old comments.Oh man, then I guess I must respond to that! While there are comments older than mine, there aren't many. ;-)
(insert money sound here).
I wonder, if somebody were to pick a given court, pay the fee to download every docket/page, and then offer them up on a website with good search and a reasonable monthly fee, could they turn a profit on the endeavor?
Wouldn't it be faster and easier to list the people who're aren't critical of Trump?
So, yes, there's an opportunity cost to putting up a great number of low-orbiting satellites.
That said, it's looking like SpaceX may actually pull it off. There's people beta testing their satellite internet presently.
We all know the broadband space is in desperate need of disruption, and if a satellite internet provider can do so, I'd like to say "more power to them!"
Even better, we've got more than one competitor in the space (no pun)!
In the future, I expect using satellites for astronomic observation will become more common, which completely ameliorates the ground-level photography issue. On top of that, there's a ton of cpu-drive techniques for getting non-static objects out of images.
We have so much to gain, and ready solutions to every complaint. We should be going full-steam ahead on satellite internet, in my opinion.
Oh yes, it's a slap on the wrist.
If ever there were something to rally public support of Net Neutrality around, this may very well be it.
"Verizon cares more about money than lives".
or perhaps:
"Verizon would be fine with watching you burn to death unless you pay(?)"
Many, the hatchet piece which could be written based upon this...!
Since this is likely going to be a recurring problem, make it a question on the decennial census.
Yes! Anonymous Coward is right! Surely, having slid in the tip, there's no way the cable companies (see: ISPs) will then continue to see how far they can stretch your money-orifice all while having no concern as to your discomfort. Certainly, there's no way we'll ever end up with bullshit like having hundreds of channels, all "packaged", and all filled with garbage content--for the low low price of over $120 per month, in a handy non-negotiable package. Plus, AC in his comparison to religions and tornados and volcanos... wow! He's right! After huge events, people will die and we'll abandon our faith but maybe after a few generations, the PTSD will have tapered off to the point where we believe our post-volcanic world is "normal". Damn, AC, you're some kind of philosopher-king! Have you thought about running for Parliament in Zurich? You'd be great!
One wonders at what point it becomes more economical to simply deny service to certain countries with overly silly laws...
(a fictional planet & race from Star Trek: Deep Space 9)
I specifically remember a scene where the Doctor says to Garak, "I'm sick of these Cardassian mystery novels. There's no mystery, everybody is always guilty!".
Garak replies: "Of course, Doctor, the mystery is: who is guilty of what?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Can you imagine the world we'll create if this becomes common and normal? Nobody will start a new internet business unless they can already afford cutting-edge censorship techniques and an army of lawyers.
Rather than a law, we should enshrine something like this into the United States Constitution via Amendment.
Also, Factorio (in case you haven't tried it).
If I ever accidentally manage to win one of those mega-jackpots, I'm going to start a new hobby of making companies that charge reasonable fees for service, just so I can fooking eat the lunch of companies that do this shyte.
Even if the stupid overcharging assholes match prices with me for a time (until I can be gotten rid of), there will at least be a fair price for a while.
I wonder if anybody has seriously put forward that data (internet) should be regulated in the same manner as water and electricity.
I'm going to have to go against the flow on this one. If you are armed and shoot somebody in self-defense, then you've done nothing illegal.
Under modern precedent, you may, in defense of somebody else's life, take any action you would take in defense of your own life.
QED: The officer shot a person who seemed to present a danger to the life and limb of another person. What they did in this situation would have been legal for anybody to do.
Thanks!
Had a desk job back then. These days I lurk and listen to the podcast. Glad you're still busy advocating for sense.
Nope, just been busy.
Thanks though, I haven't been called an AI before!
Is this one of those "takes on to know one" things?
Are you an AI?
Random Insight on Law, Intents, Good, and Evil
(sorry, mildly grand title) It occurs to me, that on paper, good and bad governance could look much the same--laws lauded with phrases like "for the children," "for the greater good," "in support of our people's rights," or "in defense of our nation," and so on. Perhaps a great deal of how good or bad a nation is comes down to the aggregate of who uses the laws, literally "for what and how" are the laws used? Is it possible that a nation which appears a utopian democracy (if one looks shallowly at the laws) could actually be a fascist feudalism, with secret police stealing anything they like and breaking into peoples' houses in the middle of the night with impunity, and lords and baron living in comfor while their serfs struggle to survive? And perhaps laws which should make a country looks like a socialist/communist backwater may result in a place with the highest average happiness on the planet? I ponder if perhaps the issue isn't laws, but people and culture. There's no order but what we make. No justice, just us.