And they’re right. But goddamn, so do you, asshole. You’re just used to your own stank. People eat different foods, they sweat, they smell, they’re meat machines. Get over it.
Open up your brain to experiences outside your tiniest of bubbles, Alabama. Sheesh.
My mother told me that my father went vegetarian for a year or so (when I was a little kid) and that his dirty laundry smelled different from the rest of the family.
The law he’s citing is a good law, but it also very clearly doesn’t apply here.
Coordinating an effort to protect advertisers from association with extremist content, like what Garm was doing, could very easily be seen as a boycott against Twitter, since it is a well established fact that Twitter doesn’t do much to protect advertisers from reputational damage related to extremist content.
The question is whether or not the boycott was illegal. If the companies who rely on Garm’s advice (World Federation of Advertisers and member companies CVS, Orsted, Unilever, and Mars, who are in named in the lawsuit) collectively benefit in way that gives them a competitive advantage over Twitter or anyone not a member of Garm, the sure, that could be an issue, but that’s not really the case.
CVS, Orsted, Unilever, and Mars largely don’t compete with each other in the same markets. Some even work in symbiosis (CVS sells what Unilever and Mars make / all three might use Orsted energy products). There’s no reason to believe that anyone not subscribing to Garm’s guidance is going to experience a disadvantage that can’t simply be explained by Garm giving good advice.
Advising that advertisers avoid sites that allow hate speech and extremism is definitely a form of organized boycotting against any named website, but it isn’t intended to harm those sites, it is only meant to protect advertisers from toxic association with hate and extremism.
I sincerely hope he loses this lawsuit. Putting Garm out of business is shitty, but setting the precedent that you’re not allowed to respond to hate speech and extremism is dangerous.
God forbid the people get an actual say in policies that affect them directly. Couldn’t have that now in a Republican controlled area. People might realize Republican policies are trash.
It blows my mind that somehow he thinks that he can just sue people because they don’t want to do business with him. This is purely frivolous and a bullying tactic.
Ok, so now that’s Japan, EU, UK and Brazil that hate elon’s guts. He’s gonna start to run out of democracies to fuck with, will he move on to dictators or is that friendly fire?
As a nation of one, one of my foreign policy agendas is the eradication of everything Elon Musk stands for. All my cells voted in favor of this, we are not a house divided.
yeah, yeah, there are people of all kinds in these places, but know that if he attacks your institutions, he is not on your side. Governments have taken notice and are starting to act on it.
You would think the rapidly escalating insurance cost would be a warning that Florida is not good or safe place to live. If your home is built on shifting sand, threatened by rising seas, and virtually guaranteed to be regularly battered by violent storms perhaps you should move before it completely depreciated. Floridians better hope Aquaman has a big checkbook.
I’d like to take a moment to share this video about what happens to the human body at different zones of the blast. It’s pretty horrific, but simulated.
Wouldn’t feel a thing. At minimum the blast would travel at the speed of sound ~343m/s. Nerve conduction velocity is on the range of 120m/s. Your nerves would be vapor before the signal reached its destination.
To prevent this for future breakups, I say the content and services sold by big tech should be made competitively compatible and interoperable via nullification of DRM laws; people buy music and movies and cloud storage; let them legally move their purchases to any competitor and big tech companies will break up naturally as local competitors emerge from people who dislike big tech for their own reasons. Monopolies cannot be trusted to lower prices for content and services. Legally nullifying DRM is like the FCC telling customers in 1968 that it was finally okay to ignore the “Bell equipment only” legal warning that had kept them locked into leasing their telephone sets for usurious amounts from AT&T for decades. A few years later, in 1982, AT&T was broken up. AT&T is almost a total monopoly again, but phones remain interoperable.
This was a great comment. You argue this so effectively that it will influence how I argue about monopolies in future — I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people who critique aspects of the world to know how to fix them, but it certainly does help if one has specific points for how things should be different.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.