I am not going to say Matt Lauer is not a reporter, but if as a moderator he does not want to correct the "debate" that is his choice. It has been talked about enough as it is and unless something new comes up, all he does is waste time by reiterating what has already been said, pretty much like everything that was said on there.
There is one plus side though, the less time they spend going back and forth over what is correct or incorrect, the more chances he gives people like Trump to stick a foot in their mouths again.
I personally think the story is more important than if the site blocks ad blockers. If we really want to read the linked site we can disable the ad blocker or whitelist that site.
But it is nice of you to try to link sites that don't block ad blockers. That is a good way to direct traffic and help endorse sites that have business practices you agree with.
I would like to mention that technically a gray area, technically, depending on the programing, the photo taken by the robot could actually be considered to have been taken by a human. If they set the parameters for when and where that photo was taken, it would in essence be no different from a person setting a timer on their own camera. Now if a planet reached out and hit the button for it to take a photo, then that would be a different situation, but otherwise it is just a person setting a timer, then sifting through and picking the better ones.
To me it is fairly simple. Their servers their rules. If you want free speech then setup your own system for publishing. Then you can control what is published. That is the only way to guarantee free speech. If twitter was going out and hampering your ability to say something elsewhere then I would say the company was violating your free speech, but they are not. So it is completely within their rights to block content they find unacceptable and not be transparent about it.
If you do not like it then use another service. And that is another reason why I do not consider it violation of anyons freedom of speech. It is not the only way to say something on the internet, just one of the most widely used. That does not justify concerns about free speech.
They may not be the law, but their arrangement with the National Association of Theater Owners can still prevent people from seeing movies at their local theater. The law does not say that they have to let you in.
The rules just need to be re-written. The fact that it had to be done for satellite and now internet should be proof of that. They need to realize that it should be an encompassing rule that is worded in a way that welcomes emerging technologies, not worded in a way that it specifies allowed technologies.
I am suprised at the number of people being overly critical of this. Even the news article is. It is like people just love to jump on the "Bash the MPAA/RIAA" bandwagon and will do it just for kicks.
Personally this move is pretty freaking worthless. The market for this sort of thing is small. If they decide to ban a minor consumer market, that may become a major consumer market, then so be it. It is not like this is going to kill the technology. People aren't going to show up to a theater wearing google glass, get denied entry and go "Oh no, the MPAA and NATO banned google glass, I purchased dead tech." Then proceed to go into hysterics at the idea of wasting money.
More likely all they are going to do two things. Turn people away from a theater going experience, and provide some incentive for others to come up with more discrete technology (this is probably very unlikely). If they decide they want to take the risk of losing a customer base then so be it. That is there right.
As for those who use prescription google glass, I feel sorry for you. Not because you got turned away, but because you don't keep a non-google glass spare around. One day it may be entirely or mostly socially acceptable to wear them everywhere, but right now there are a lot of people who don't like you. As long as your not recording me, I don't care, but I have met many people who doing like them and have bad impressions of the people who wear them.
I find the patent and copyright lawsuits in Texas to be funny. Really, they should just be a day long affair so that everyone can move along to the appeals court. Just have a sheet of paper that the 2 parts rubber stamp with arguments and counter arguments, and the judge quickly finds in favor the plaintiff. You can even apply for the custom made rubber stamps ahead of time.
I understand why the defendants go through it all, but I honestly think someone needs just remove Texas from the whole thing.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Insurgence.
I am not going to say Matt Lauer is not a reporter, but if as a moderator he does not want to correct the "debate" that is his choice. It has been talked about enough as it is and unless something new comes up, all he does is waste time by reiterating what has already been said, pretty much like everything that was said on there.
There is one plus side though, the less time they spend going back and forth over what is correct or incorrect, the more chances he gives people like Trump to stick a foot in their mouths again.
I personally think the story is more important than if the site blocks ad blockers. If we really want to read the linked site we can disable the ad blocker or whitelist that site.
But it is nice of you to try to link sites that don't block ad blockers. That is a good way to direct traffic and help endorse sites that have business practices you agree with.
I would like to mention that technically a gray area, technically, depending on the programing, the photo taken by the robot could actually be considered to have been taken by a human. If they set the parameters for when and where that photo was taken, it would in essence be no different from a person setting a timer on their own camera. Now if a planet reached out and hit the button for it to take a photo, then that would be a different situation, but otherwise it is just a person setting a timer, then sifting through and picking the better ones.
To me it is fairly simple. Their servers their rules. If you want free speech then setup your own system for publishing. Then you can control what is published. That is the only way to guarantee free speech. If twitter was going out and hampering your ability to say something elsewhere then I would say the company was violating your free speech, but they are not. So it is completely within their rights to block content they find unacceptable and not be transparent about it.
If you do not like it then use another service. And that is another reason why I do not consider it violation of anyons freedom of speech. It is not the only way to say something on the internet, just one of the most widely used. That does not justify concerns about free speech.
Re: the mpaa or riaa are NOT the law
They may not be the law, but their arrangement with the National Association of Theater Owners can still prevent people from seeing movies at their local theater. The law does not say that they have to let you in.
The rules just need to be re-written. The fact that it had to be done for satellite and now internet should be proof of that. They need to realize that it should be an encompassing rule that is worded in a way that welcomes emerging technologies, not worded in a way that it specifies allowed technologies.
I am suprised at the number of people being overly critical of this. Even the news article is. It is like people just love to jump on the "Bash the MPAA/RIAA" bandwagon and will do it just for kicks.
Personally this move is pretty freaking worthless. The market for this sort of thing is small. If they decide to ban a minor consumer market, that may become a major consumer market, then so be it. It is not like this is going to kill the technology. People aren't going to show up to a theater wearing google glass, get denied entry and go "Oh no, the MPAA and NATO banned google glass, I purchased dead tech." Then proceed to go into hysterics at the idea of wasting money.
More likely all they are going to do two things. Turn people away from a theater going experience, and provide some incentive for others to come up with more discrete technology (this is probably very unlikely). If they decide they want to take the risk of losing a customer base then so be it. That is there right.
As for those who use prescription google glass, I feel sorry for you. Not because you got turned away, but because you don't keep a non-google glass spare around. One day it may be entirely or mostly socially acceptable to wear them everywhere, but right now there are a lot of people who don't like you. As long as your not recording me, I don't care, but I have met many people who doing like them and have bad impressions of the people who wear them.
I find the patent and copyright lawsuits in Texas to be funny. Really, they should just be a day long affair so that everyone can move along to the appeals court. Just have a sheet of paper that the 2 parts rubber stamp with arguments and counter arguments, and the judge quickly finds in favor the plaintiff. You can even apply for the custom made rubber stamps ahead of time.
I understand why the defendants go through it all, but I honestly think someone needs just remove Texas from the whole thing.