Trust me when I say that the current corporate controlled outlets are not robbing you non-leftist POVs. Leftists and corporations are diametrically opposed. Leftists would tear down all corporations if they could and as a result, corporations don't much care for leftists.
With that said, if your views are being taken down by the corporations (which we have already established are not leftist) maybe there's another reason. Most sites have a report function. People do use it. If you're getting reported a lot, maybe it's time to re-examine your views and stop blaming the platform?
It's right there in the name "enforcement". They are a law enforcement agency. Unlimited spying powers would kind of be a Bad Thing for a law enforcement agency.
It doesn't matter what your personal opinion of ICE is, it's still a law enforcement agency. As such, they are bound by the 4th amendment, whether you like it or not. One thing you might notice about most Constitutional Amendments is that they don't mention citizens anywhere. That means it has more of an effect of restricting law enforcement powers, no matter who they use those powers against.
Well... The team in power tends to do most of the fucking. Right now that's republicans. When dems were in power, they did a lot of fucking, and TD talked about them quite a lot.
Yes, and if this memo hadn't been almost completely devoid of facts, other than Nunes shit the bed (again), then it would be worth publishing. As it stands, all it does is rile up the teams and give the FBI a handy out for next time.
That's kind of what the judge was saying. By willfully giving the classified info to people who didn't have clearance, they've effectively declassified it.
According to the EO, if the ISP in question doesn't follow Net Neutrality, they won't have to cut off State offices, the State will do that for them. That's literally what it says.
"Not doing business with" means they won't use them for anything up to, and including, regular internet services for State offices. These are not income streams the ISPs want to give up.
I see. I apologize. Well, the troll I was feeding basically said we shouldn't be applauding this too much as it's just grandstading by politicians that got us into this mess anyway.
To be fair, state Attorneys don't have anything to do with the laws written. If legislature decides to cozy up to ISPs, there's not much the attorneys can do about it, except maybe sue.
Pai really does fit in with the rest of the Administration. If things aren't going their way, just say they are and reality magically changes to make that true!
Best comment on this article, and something many of us have been saying for awhile now. Just because your opponent is evil, doesn't mean your evil will be excused at the voting booth. Dems need to remember that.
It's intentionally shitty reporting. If it fits with their narrative, and will get them eyeballs (or clicks) it goes live, no ifs ands or buts. This is the way that places like the Boston Globe and Fox News are alike. If tomorrow, Murdoc woke up and decided that pushing Communism would get him the most eyeballs/money, Fox and Friends would be immediately renamed to Hammer and Sickle. Same thing with every other major news origination. And really, in the current political climate, what sells better than "OMG Government attack on Free Speech!" Looking too much into it might reveal a non-story that won't sell, so they don't.
Huh. You mean relying on the one thing that has to have to justify its continued budget (amount of "investigations") as a metric for American safety isn't a good idea? Pfft.
Next you'll say that we shouldn't listen to Comcast about Net Neutrality, and that would just be ridiculous.
Love it when people spout off this crap when they have no idea what they're talking about. You ever hear the term "natural monopoly"? Look it up. That's what ISPs, for the most part, have. There is no incentive for them to not screw you over every chance they get. Without someone stepping in, that's exactly what they'll do.
There's no government control of the internet with net neutrality. There's only ISP control without it.
Re: The Internet has certainly spread knowledge of animal penises.
Trust me when I say that the current corporate controlled outlets are not robbing you non-leftist POVs. Leftists and corporations are diametrically opposed. Leftists would tear down all corporations if they could and as a result, corporations don't much care for leftists.
With that said, if your views are being taken down by the corporations (which we have already established are not leftist) maybe there's another reason. Most sites have a report function. People do use it. If you're getting reported a lot, maybe it's time to re-examine your views and stop blaming the platform?
Re: to be honest
It's right there in the name "enforcement". They are a law enforcement agency. Unlimited spying powers would kind of be a Bad Thing for a law enforcement agency.
Re: ICE is protecting domestic US of A territory against foreign invaders, so data from foreign countries such as about mass invasion plans or human trafficking could certainly be of use.
It doesn't matter what your personal opinion of ICE is, it's still a law enforcement agency. As such, they are bound by the 4th amendment, whether you like it or not. One thing you might notice about most Constitutional Amendments is that they don't mention citizens anywhere. That means it has more of an effect of restricting law enforcement powers, no matter who they use those powers against.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
Well... The team in power tends to do most of the fucking. Right now that's republicans. When dems were in power, they did a lot of fucking, and TD talked about them quite a lot.
Re:
Yes, and if this memo hadn't been almost completely devoid of facts, other than Nunes shit the bed (again), then it would be worth publishing. As it stands, all it does is rile up the teams and give the FBI a handy out for next time.
Re: Re: Re: Whining again, Techdirt
2. If one team is constantly fucking us over, don't you think that's worth talking about?
Re: Re: oversight, well, there's been an oversight
Yeah, but then they replace them all with Captain Planet villains.
Re: Re: Really? While another minion this morning screams about a public joke Pai made, you can find no worry in the FBI undermining the Presidency by knowing misrepresentations to secret FISA court?
Hey! I resemble that remark! And I really don't want people associating me with OOTB.
Re:
That's kind of what the judge was saying. By willfully giving the classified info to people who didn't have clearance, they've effectively declassified it.
Re: OKAY, as fanboys often advise: ISPs just stop doing business with "the state"! We'll see how long lasts.
According to the EO, if the ISP in question doesn't follow Net Neutrality, they won't have to cut off State offices, the State will do that for them. That's literally what it says.
"Not doing business with" means they won't use them for anything up to, and including, regular internet services for State offices. These are not income streams the ISPs want to give up.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see. I apologize. Well, the troll I was feeding basically said we shouldn't be applauding this too much as it's just grandstading by politicians that got us into this mess anyway.
Re: Re: Re:
Since this story is about state AGs suing for net neutrality, it doesn't make sense to complain about them not doing anything, does it?
Re:
To be fair, state Attorneys don't have anything to do with the laws written. If legislature decides to cozy up to ISPs, there's not much the attorneys can do about it, except maybe sue.
Re:
Pai really does fit in with the rest of the Administration. If things aren't going their way, just say they are and reality magically changes to make that true!
Re:
Not to mention the kind of, uhm, "qualifications" the people he places at the head of these agencies have.
Re:
Best comment on this article, and something many of us have been saying for awhile now. Just because your opponent is evil, doesn't mean your evil will be excused at the voting booth. Dems need to remember that.
Re:
"Pay no mind to the black, unmarked SUV following you at all times."
It's intentionally shitty reporting. If it fits with their narrative, and will get them eyeballs (or clicks) it goes live, no ifs ands or buts. This is the way that places like the Boston Globe and Fox News are alike. If tomorrow, Murdoc woke up and decided that pushing Communism would get him the most eyeballs/money, Fox and Friends would be immediately renamed to Hammer and Sickle. Same thing with every other major news origination. And really, in the current political climate, what sells better than "OMG Government attack on Free Speech!" Looking too much into it might reveal a non-story that won't sell, so they don't.
Huh. You mean relying on the one thing that has to have to justify its continued budget (amount of "investigations") as a metric for American safety isn't a good idea? Pfft.
Next you'll say that we shouldn't listen to Comcast about Net Neutrality, and that would just be ridiculous.
Re: net neutrality
Love it when people spout off this crap when they have no idea what they're talking about. You ever hear the term "natural monopoly"? Look it up. That's what ISPs, for the most part, have. There is no incentive for them to not screw you over every chance they get. Without someone stepping in, that's exactly what they'll do.
There's no government control of the internet with net neutrality. There's only ISP control without it.