Technology and Dissenting Opinions

enframed

Phil Edwards status
Apr 11, 2006
7,125
2,328
113
Del Boca Vista, Phase III
Timely example of government inserting itself into matters - Facebook in Australia:

Fascinating solution. Byline seems a little misleading. If I'm reading this correctly, the Oz gov passed a law saying that Facebook had to pay for every piece of "published news" that ends up on its website, whether they posted it or a user did.

Here's more on the subject.


"In December, the government introduced “world-first” legislation that would force tech giants to pay local news outlets for featuring and linking to their stories. Google balked, warning that the proposed news media bargaining code would “break a fundamental principle of how the web works” and threatened to pull its search engine from Australia."

Hahahaha.
 

StuAzole

Duke status
Jan 22, 2016
17,201
1,935
113
Fascinating solution. Byline seems a little misleading. If I'm reading this correctly, the Oz gov passed a law saying that Facebook had to pay for every piece of "published news" that ends up on its website, whether they posted it or a user did.

Here's more on the subject.


"In December, the government introduced “world-first” legislation that would force tech giants to pay local news outlets for featuring and linking to their stories. Google balked, warning that the proposed news media bargaining code would “break a fundamental principle of how the web works” and threatened to pull its search engine from Australia."

Hahahaha.
Yeah, it was just an example of how regulation can quickly ruin things.

But really, this whole discussion seems for forget that users of facebook etc. aren't the clients, they're the goods. Social media ceases to exist in large part if data sharing ends.
 

Sharkbiscuit

Tom Curren status
Aug 6, 2003
13,655
4,752
113
Jacksonville Beach
Greenwald underlines the wrong fkn part of the point....and ifallalot gets guthooked

does this clown car have brakes?
I like how the tweet still shows "...with Russian ties" and "...targeted the United States and the European Union...." and they only highlight the NATO bit, then act like they're not retards for acting like Twitter bans all criticism of NATO, while they speak out against it. On Twitter.

I think resenting restraints on "free speech" on Twitter via bitching about it on Twitter is the only thing dumber than drinking bleach to own the libs.

Wasn't CPAC like the first thing to cancel fkn Milo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: afoaf

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
68,710
4,433
113
HB, CA
Greenwald underlines the wrong fkn part of the point....and ifallalot gets guthooked

does this clown car have brakes?
Oh I saw the RUSHA part

Keep chasing that Cold War boogeyman

Greenwald absolutely underlined the most important part. NATO is your money being wasted. Everyone always talks about cutting the military budget; getting rid of things like NATO is the best way to do so. You can't have your cake and eat it too
 

Sharkbiscuit

Tom Curren status
Aug 6, 2003
13,655
4,752
113
Jacksonville Beach
Oh I saw the RUSHA part

Keep chasing that Cold War boogeyman

Greenwald absolutely underlined the most important part. NATO is your money being wasted. Everyone always talks about cutting the military budget; getting rid of things like NATO is the best way to do so. You can't have your cake and eat it too
So were 100 accounts banned because they independently said NATO is a waste of money?

Or were 100 accounts banned because they were coordinated sock puppets that targeted the USA and EU, in addition to Russia?

Nice goalpost move though!
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
68,710
4,433
113
HB, CA
So were 100 accounts banned because they independently said NATO is a waste of money?

Or were 100 accounts banned because they were coordinated sock puppets that targeted the USA and EU, in addition to Russia?

Nice goalpost move though!
Why mention the NATO part then?
 

Sharkbiscuit

Tom Curren status
Aug 6, 2003
13,655
4,752
113
Jacksonville Beach
Why mention the NATO part then?
Because they were one target of the coordination?

Holy hell, how hard is this to grasp. A bunch of people, possibly including Milo, coordinated Twitter harassment of some broad in a shitty Ghostbusters reboot.

Were they banned because they said Ghostbusters sucks, or for coordinated harassment?
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
34,299
7,097
113
Oh I saw the RUSHA part

Keep chasing that Cold War boogeyman

Greenwald absolutely underlined the most important part. NATO is your money being wasted. Everyone always talks about cutting the military budget; getting rid of things like NATO is the best way to do so. You can't have your cake and eat it too
it's not even the RUSHA part, dummy

it's the sock puppet accounts spreading disinformation part that is relevant

you're upset because Twitter banned troll accounts

you're so fkn far up your ass you don't know which way is straight anymore
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
68,710
4,433
113
HB, CA
Because they were one target of the coordination?

Holy hell, how hard is this to grasp. A bunch of people, possibly including Milo, coordinated Twitter harassment of some broad in a shitty Ghostbusters reboot.

Were they banned because they said Ghostbusters sucks, or for coordinated harassment?
Who fucking cares? If only 100 coordinated trolls are targeting the USA and EU via Russia, ban them. I'm sure there are literally millions more

This is because the scared MIC golden goose is being "threatened"

1614188111411.png
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
68,710
4,433
113
HB, CA
it's not even the RUSHA part, dummy

it's the sock puppet accounts spreading disinformation part that is relevant

you're upset because Twitter banned troll accounts

you're so fkn far up your ass you don't know which way is straight anymore
There are literally millions of troll accounts on Twitter spreading disinformation

I'm upset because we're acting like it's the 50s protecting the biggest waste of money in our country