That is literally the law of the land. Read into castle doctrine and duty to retreat. Business owners have the legal right to defend their life on their property with deadly force if left no choice (i.e. a mob has surrounded you)
At any rate his tweet was ambiguous, he could have meant shooting naturally follows looting, not that he was ordering the guard to execute civilians.
It's clear Jack doesn't want to kowtow or maybe his ego is bruised but I just don't understand what he expects to come of this. The President has stacked the courts in his favor. He will get his way and twitter will take a massive hit financially.
My best guess is that Jack plans to move the company headquarters out of the US which would explain why he chose to allow remote work indefinitely. But can he get it past shareholders? The President had also stated he doesn't want foreign companies on the NYSE and no other market offers similar liquidity.
Saying that companies can't go against the president because he stacked the courts sounds a lot like a totalitarian regime to me. I really hope the US is not there yet and that anyone, individual or company, can criticise the government without fearing retribution.
Now if getting involved is smart from a business perspective is another question. But but they will have thought about that and also considered the consequences of not acting.
Not to mention the courts have been stacked using the Federalist Society's shortlist. While I personally think they're a bunch of highly educated kooks, I don't think that ideologically they'll side with the President in this fight.
Pretty much weekly or bi-weekly? Like I don't want to go out and make a list of all the court cases and appeals that his administration has lost because it's not short.
If you think Trump suddenly decided he wanted to make a big deal of this and hasn't been working with Barr and GOP to draft legislation from day one (of Barr's tenure) you've not been paying attention.
You can continue to believe Trump is unpredictable when almost everything he does is signaled far in advance.
They have survived so far paying SV salaries. The non-engineering positions are practically disposable but they make up a considerable amount of bloat at many companies. Now would be an ideal time to trim the fat.
Ending section 230 would end every website that has user uploaded content. Nothing will come of this. The biggest risk to twitter is that Trump gets mad and deletes his account.
I wonder if people will still be asking this question when the tanks roll into San Francisco.
(Sure, HN's leaky "no politics" rule, but ultimately you can refuse to deal with politics only so long as politics refuses to deal with you. It will be interesting to see what the effect of the Section 230 executive order will be... which also got flagged off HN)
I would hope the tanks roll in if they try to burn the city down. The politicians in SF/CA have made every attempt to disarm the public. What happens when the SFPD abandon their post and looters are going house to house?
And it's not so much a refusal to deal with politics as much as we are already dealing with it everywhere else. It's nice to have a refuge. Although I find it strange that thread was pruned as Section 230 is definitely related to tech.
Interested in what they were using. That was a flawless video. If it was a LiveU that implies that general cell service is still working well. If it was an older fashioned setup. I didn't see an SNG or links truck as they spun round at the start.
Of the hundreds of forms out there across the static properties that are mine, and that I work on, it'll take time to convert them all.
As for user counts, one of the benefits of it being a personal project is that I don't have to share or defend that. It's a service that's there, if you want it feel free to use it. If not, that's completely okay too
I'll add that form to my list for conversion though, so at least thanks for that :)
If companies want to allow user generated content they should be liable for moderating it. The legal protections that these companies have thrived on should be repealed. They don't seem to have trouble removing content they disagree with so illegal content shouldn't be any more difficult.
If companies are going to self-moderate their platforms then they should not receive any kind of legal protection from user-generated content. I wholly believe companies have every right to dictate what is on their platform but they cannot have it both ways. If you can afford to moderate content you disagree with, you can do so for illegal content as well.
If I own a store and someone injures themselves on the premises I am held liable for that. I did not force that person to enter the store but the benefits of having a store outweighed the risks. Why should internet companies receive special treatment? They should be 100% liable for what happens on their "premises" if they are going to take the risk of allowing user-generated content.
This presumes equal weight of all content. Some content gets far more attention and thus must face a higher degree of scrutiny. This is the only way to curate at scale.
Apple does this with the App Store, where it is possible to get away with breaking app store rules if the app is not downloaded very often. It is not worth the time and energy for Apple to challenge apps that no one is downloading in the first place.
On twitter, with regard to illegal content it also has to matter the degree. How illegal / and reprehensible is it? How often is this tweet being requested?
Twitter has some automated method of determining whether a tweet is NSFW and it is very accurate to the point where I didn't even realize they allowed that content. They can figure out how to filter illegal content as well.
I believe this is the basis for conservative opinion on this. The trouble is, even offline there is no universal 'filter' for illegality.
Law enforcement must also work at scale, and focus on illegal behavior that is having the most impact.
When a court finds this power is used improperly, such as the arrest of Stormy Daniels in Columbus, Ohio, there are penalties.
For something like this to stand, I believe conservatives will have to prove major examples conservative bias. Unfortunately, the tweets in question so far will not be great evidence of that.
Store owners, at least in the US, are not 100% liable for injuries on their property. Their liability depends on several factors, which include the reasonableness of their behavior and the behavior of the visitor.
If you take that to the extreme, then someone running a forum for young kids would not be allowed to remove pornographic material, lest they be held liable for all other inappropriate content that gets posted.
Because the scale makes this nearly impossible. Or rather, extremely expensive to the point where only the biggest of companies can do so, and at the cost of real-time information.
How often are people bootstrapping a social media site? That's not something you rollout with a tight budget. Most websites do not allow user-generated content. This won't have nearly as big of an effect on the sector as you think.
Whether they are paying people or writing automated systems to remove content they disagree with, these companies argued for this legal protection on the grounds of protecting free-speech, and now that they want to restrict it they don't deserve those same protections.
> If companies are going to self-moderate their platforms then they should not receive any kind of legal protection from user-generated content. I wholly believe companies have every right to dictate what is on their platform but they cannot have it both ways. If you can afford to moderate content you disagree with, you can do so for illegal content as well.
So if I run a chess forum and disallow posts that are not related to chess, your belief is that if one of my users posts a libelous statement about another user's alleged conduct during a chess game at a tournament in their city, I should be on the hook for the first user's post?
If I can afford to spend maybe 20 minutes a day reviewing all posts that keyword-based scanning suggest might not be about chess, I should have been able to fly to the city that tournament was in and conduct an investigation to determine if what the user said was true before allowing the post to stay up on my forum?
Do they have protection right now? Platforms are already held responsible for illegal activities and are subject to requests by law enforcement and copyright holders. They're generally given a chance to respond to a request, challenge requests through channels and listen to appeals. But they would eventually be culpable if they weren't compliant.
Sounds like you're referring to DMCA where as I was referring to heinous crimes like drug/sex/child trafficking. They do have protection right now in either case.
I'm referring to both. But in both cases, the content hosts don't get punished instantly. They are served with notice of offending content and given a chance to comply. The host and the creator both have avenues of appeal. At least, in the US they do. It varies country to country.
It really warms my heart that the landing pad is called "OF COURSE I STILL LOVE YOU DRONE SHIP"
In a consumer era where almost all naming is done by marketing and void of any soul, it really, really makes me happy to see a little bit growing through the cracks in the concrete.
The name is just "Of course I still love you". They're named after vessels from Iain M Banks' "Culture" SF setting.
Culture spaceships have AI "minds" and the mind of a large ship-constructing ship will name its offspring. They tend to have an odd sense of humour, there are plenty of sites with lists of Culture ship names, and Banks wrote footnotes excusing the obvious references to 20th century human culture as matters of translation (e.g. there is an Offensive Unit named "I said I have a big stick" which is a reference to Theodore Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick").
Why does facebook need to do anything about this? People have been disagreeing with each other violently or otherwise for as long as humans have existed. Do they think they can do anything about this?
There has never been a mechanism whereby everyone can be against everyone else about everything.
When my high school english teacher and my aunt are arguing about politics and they've never met each other, it's clear this is a new development in human conflict.
Please, no. Your application belongs on the web. I can already tell when applications are written with middleware, cross-platform tools, electron, etc. because they always run like trash. They offer no benefit over a website and only open up your machine to new attack vectors. I know I'll catch flack for this, but we shouldn't lower the bar to entry here. Native app development is not significantly more difficult than web and it's drastically better for the end user.
I don’t mean to sound overly negative but for small shops or individual developers there is simply no way for them to create a web, Mac and Windows version of their app at the same time. Personally, I’m glad that the likes of Electron give them the option. I’d much prefer a fully native version but I’d take Electron over nothing. You’re free to disagree of course, but no one is forcing you to install these things on your computer.
The problem this solves is that web apps don't have (1) cmd-tab icons or (2) decent notifications. And it does that without using "cross-platform tools" or "electron". That's why it's cool.
It sounds like you didn't read my post. My complaint was that its lazy developing to just take your web app and put it on the desktop. I was not commenting on the merits of this tool.
While I don't entirely disagree with your sentiment, this is pretty distinctly not middleware/crossplatform/electron.
The closer analogy here is the iOS ecosystem, where folks ship apps that are really just Safari WebViews inside an app icon, and who would probably be perfectly happy to ship a PWA if users weren't thoroughly trained to use the AppStore.
Historically, developing an app with tools that are native to the platform provided asymptotically better user experience. So, if your goal is to perfect the UX, native is your choice.
In reality, rarely do you need to work on the UX first. It is usually more wise to sketch the idea using cross platform tools, validate the idea, then rewrite parts of it / develop new features with native technologies.
If all you're doing is creating an MVP do whatever is easiest. But yes ideally you would have two separate codebases and obviously it's dependent on your project how much tools can be shared between the projects.
That is literally the law of the land. Read into castle doctrine and duty to retreat. Business owners have the legal right to defend their life on their property with deadly force if left no choice (i.e. a mob has surrounded you)
At any rate his tweet was ambiguous, he could have meant shooting naturally follows looting, not that he was ordering the guard to execute civilians.