“PragerU v. YouTube”
Are you trying to make me irritated with you?
You keep going off on these anti-pagan rants.
Read More...Tuesday roundup
The Amazon Deal Shows Why We Must End Corporate Welfare
Top Ecuadorian Diplomat Destroys Guardian's Claim That Manafort Visited Assange
Migrant caravan hits tourism
Will Dems Protest Clintons, Too?
Macron Looks to Tax Measures to Curb
Truth Is What We Hide, Self-Serving Cover Stories Are What We Sell
Will Paris Riots Scuttle Climate Accord?
Revealed: Marriott's 500 Million Hack Came After A String Of Security Breaches
Paris protests reveal fracture between France’s haves and have-nots
Miseducated or Stupid?
I quit Instagram and Facebook and it made me a lot happier — and that's a big problem for social media companies
Is the FBI Raiding Whistleblowers' Homes to Protect Robert Mueller?
I deleted my Twitter account. It's a breeding ground for thoughtlessness and contempt.
Thursday roundup
Censorship & corporate virtue signalling
Alex Jones is wrong almost all the time. He's not worth your time or mine. Infowars is not a good source.
Absolutely these companies have the right to decide who does and does not use their platform. It's their money after all.
But they are hypocrites when they declare that they support free speech while applying selective censorship. Especially if they allow the Islamist, the anti-semitic, the anti-conservative, the antifa, and the anti-white stuff to stay on their platforms.
That's the problem with hate speech. Somehow it's always about what the other guy said, never about what you said.
And all this still overlooks the obvious. If someone doesn't like what is in a podcast or a video, they don't have to pay attention.
Demanding it's removal for the greater good is the coward's way out. It means you don't trust someone to make their own choices. You want to meddle. You wouldn't stand for it if someone else did it to you.
People should choose for themselves. Corporations have lousy morals.
NeoNote — Online monopolies
❝❝No, they are not monopolies.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
When I sit down at a computer, I don't have to go through Facebook to check the weather or see what is happening at this site. If I wanted to message someone on my iPod or iPad, I don't have to use Twitter.
With AT&T, if you were in an area covered you had no choice. It was your regional Bell company and AT&T or nothing. The breakup fixed that, you could choose your phone company. And today, if I am not in range of the right cell tower, my phone still works as long as I am in range of a cell tower.
Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, all got big by offering something the competition did not have. No one was forced. Competition is the only way to reduce their hold. And the competition, like all competition, has to offer something more than "just as good as."
For a while, iOS and macOSX had software hooks so that Facebook and Twitter had easier access. That's no longer necessarily true, some of Apple's customers didn't want their data shared by companies that weren't trustworthy.
Government intervention is the last thing we need. There are already politicos who complain about "fake news" that isn't fake, it's just not what the politicos want you to think about. From the news in the last couple of days, it seems Twitter is going after conservative and libertarian users. Do we really want a world where government decides what may and may not be said?
Oh, one other thing. Monopolies rely on government support and intervention. Start regulating and you just planted a monopoly.
I agree it's a mess.
To get a site, you have to register a domain name. Then you have to get server space. If you use a company like Wordpress, you agree to carry their ads on your site in exchange for a reduced rate or free use on their server space. If you go on your own, you find a web host (like MacHighway) and you have more control over the site and advertising.
Think of it like a storefront that you have to rent. Depending on the terms of the lease, that is how much service your "landlord" provides and how much you provide to your visitors.
If Twitter provides the ability to block people you don't like, I agree that it should be available to ALL users. But the platform is not public property. The "landlord" can block out who they want when they want. But they shouldn't be shielded from the consequences of their actions. They are liable if they provide different services and benefits to their users. If it's a "free" service, then all "free" users should have the same benefits as all other "free" users. The "landlord" can ban conservatives, but if they allow conservatives (or one specific high profile conservative), then that person should have the same rights and benefits.
ETA: The real question is if the platform should ban offensive content and how that should be defined.❞❞
Accidentally
Daughter's Single Tweet Accidentally Launches A Business For Her Struggling Dad
““Christopher Gonzales, 39, has been facing hard times. The single father of two injured himself on the job last year and has been struggling ever since. The injury at his construction job left him with spinal cord nerve damage which makes it hard for him to physically move around. His only source of income has been a disability check he receives once a month.
Over the past year, Christopher has been trying to find his passion by exploring new hobbies. He enjoyed woodworking in his garage.
He started creating logos of various sports teams.
His daughter, Alexis, saw his amazing work and posted pictures of them on Twitter hoping someone might be interested in buying one.
"So my dad is disabled and is trying to make a little extra money because he makes so little. He makes wood carvings [in] his free time, and he can make them any size, for anything (not just team logos). Even if you don't like them a RT will help spread the word."
Alexis's tweet went unexpectedly viral with over 214,000 retweets!
She woke up the next morning to 7,000 direct messages.””