|
Post by adpz on Jun 29, 2019 21:28:04 GMT -5
These victims have profited from these services I am not saying break up Google because they are victimizing people - though that could certain be a reason. I am saying do it because they are not an agnostic platforms at all - and dangerous because of it. How would you feel about your phone company if they only let you make certain calls? Or a library that buried search results for books that were controversial? Or a phone book that refused to list certain numbers? There would be no question that those 'platforms' - all three - had crossed a bright, fat, red line. That's where Google is. That there are other phone companies or phone book makers or libraries has no bearing at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2019 21:36:51 GMT -5
A glaring difference between Google or Facebook compared to foreign spy agencies is we willingly agree to the terms and use their services. Who enforces the safe harbor? I can’t find any statutes or investigations pertaining to this at all. Safe Harbor is two things - one very specifically was an actual law that dealt with how US data companies could interface with EU law; that Safe Harbor was replaced by the GDPR. The second thing it was is a less formal qualitative assessment in existing law that refers to limitation of liability - in this case specifically for internet companies - when they act as agnostic platforms and not publishers. This was very important in the early stages of the internet not because of Google - which did not exist - but because of ISPs who wanted to be shielded from the effects of data that would cross their network (say child porn, copyrighted material, etc). They did not want to be put in the position of policing that data (even they do plenty of data packet sniffing) as the cost would have been exorbitant and would also have put them in precarious legal positions regarding free speech and censorship - which is exactly the problem that is now falling into the lap of the tech companies. Tech giants came along and said - hey, us too! - we're just a platform and deserve the same liability limitations as an ISP. That has largely prevented those same tech giants from falling under more regulatory scrutiny and regulatory frameworks - and it has allowed them to get away with stuff that is a) def not a platform and b) should probably not be legal, as it is (no longer legal) in the case of the EU and Australia. They didn't want safe harbor rights because they intended to censor Americans - they wanted it so they could profit off of user-generated content which largely involved copyrighted and trademark violations. But along the way they also decided that they could actually censor and police data to their benefit and liking - for economic reasons and otherwise. And that's precisely what they've done - all the while trying to claim safe harbor protections as a merely agnostic platform. "Willingly agree" is laughable - and it's why some of the same business practices of Google, Facebook etc which remain legal in the US are no longer legal under the GDPR. Vast swathes of what Google and Facebook do are not, in fact, expressly covered in any agreement that would be considered opt-in consent (which was supposed to be one of the key underpinnings of that specific Safe Harbor act). And you cannot consent or decline to actions or policies you do not know about. And realistically, there is also a limit to consent. It's sort of the same thing that you can not 'waive' your civil rights. cyberlawmonitor.com/2015/10/12/the-end-of-safe-harbor-what-does-it-mean/Thank you for the explanations it has been enlightening to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Jun 29, 2019 21:38:58 GMT -5
I read that these Antifa fucks are putting quick set cement in their milkshakes. That Ngo guy has been attacked by those Antifa fucks a few times already. The guy has balls of steel.
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jun 30, 2019 7:03:08 GMT -5
And we've been agreeing to EULA for decades, without one of us able to say with a straight face that we've ever read them. The 'regulations' in place protect the companies, same as they do for Pharma when they advertise benefits and side effects of their drugs. Difference here is that Tech has their outs buried in walls of text, when all we want to do is post a dog picture or witty reply on a message board. The way you're going about your argument is akin to victim shaming, btw. Take a step back and you'll see what I mean. These victims have profited from these services, they are not simply posting pics. This is a business venture for them and I do not care what side of the political aisle they represent. Those bastards are making a profit so they deserve anything that happens!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 7:29:53 GMT -5
These victims have profited from these services, they are not simply posting pics. This is a business venture for them and I do not care what side of the political aisle they represent. Those bastards are making a profit so they deserve anything that happens!!! Is that what your Alt-Right twitter feed is saying?
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jun 30, 2019 8:24:00 GMT -5
Those bastards are making a profit so they deserve anything that happens!!! Is that what your Alt-Right twitter feed is saying? No that's what you are saying
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 10:34:50 GMT -5
Is that what your Alt-Right twitter feed is saying? No that's what you are saying That is your interpretation and it is wrong. It’s ok IT guys usually aren’t very good with their people skills.
|
|
|
Post by Touchable on Jun 30, 2019 10:45:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on Jun 30, 2019 10:51:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tkasper01 on Jun 30, 2019 11:36:01 GMT -5
This is why you cannot drain the swamp. Too many tributaries feeding it. They should not be allowed to take this type of a job until the POTUS they served is out of office.
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jun 30, 2019 17:45:21 GMT -5
No that's what you are saying That is your interpretation and it is wrong. It’s ok IT guys usually aren’t very good with their people skills. Then what did you mean? You said, "These victims have profited from these services, they are not simply posting pics. This is a business venture for them and I do not care what side of the political aisle they represent."?
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jun 30, 2019 19:01:42 GMT -5
Such a racist!!!
|
|
|
Post by vin on Jun 30, 2019 19:09:40 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 20:36:16 GMT -5
That is your interpretation and it is wrong. It’s ok IT guys usually aren’t very good with their people skills. Then what did you mean? You said, "These victims have profited from these services, they are not simply posting pics. This is a business venture for them and I do not care what side of the political aisle they represent."? They utilized a free platform and profited. The free ride may have ended.
|
|
|
Post by JetRepulsion1 on Jun 30, 2019 23:35:58 GMT -5
Those bastards are making a profit so they deserve anything that happens!!! Is that what your Alt-Right twitter feed is saying? Alt right? You really are Hilllary Clinton. What a cunt you are.
|
|