I’m wondering if Trump feels threatened by the fact that this guy’s hush-money payoff is so much bigger than his…
3 Likes
lolz…!
1 Like
This to me is a major problem and one reason I firmly believe that the unintended consequences of this measure are not something I wish to have available “on the books”.
Outside the obvious “pay for sex” and trafficking evils, my understanding is that they have essentially created a “punish the gun manufacturer for the criminal’s shooting” scenario, something I am very much against.
I’m not sure what to think for sure yet, but seriously conflicted. I despise the idea that free speech and discussion–even about bad things–is being punished. Commission of a crime sure. But FOSTA has a lot more than that going on to my eyes. Then again, I’m not fully informed on it yet.
1 Like
I think that’s a terrible idea. The end result will be widespread censorship and the floodgates will be opened for other things. Like making gun manufacturers liable for the actions of their customers.
Individuals should be liable for their actions.
4 Likes
Agreed.
Yes but gun companies don’t specifically encourage illegal behaviour. There’s a distinction and a difference there. I’ve never seen an ad with a pistol “Need a piece for your next car jacking?!”
If you open a website specifically for call girls and prostitution… is it any shock when users use it to find prostitutes?
I was wondering about Reddit or sites like T-Nation. If you want to use any illegal (or prescription) drug. Just go into Reddit’s source boards and boom. There is a list of places, probably half of which are FBI fakes, but I digress.
I know T-Nation has never allowed source talk and disabled private messages so we can’t “PM” sources and use their website as an accessory to a felony. But is facilitating the discussion of the use of illegal drugs being an accessory? Meaning with current jurisprudence is it illegal to host a forum that details/encourages illegal behaviour?
That’s a legit question I don’t know the answer to. I believe it shouldn’t be the case, but there’s allot in this world I don’t agree with.
If we change the crime… I dunno. Like if there was a forum: www.insurancefraud101.com where nobody actually files a false claim on the site, but they discuss best practice and prudent advice…
1 Like
I’m not sure I’d consider that encouraging illegal behavior. Condoning, perhaps and if we want to make that illegal then we’ll be censoring a lot of entertainment.
I don’t know about current jurisprudence, but I personally think the platform shouldn’t be held liable for the actions of those that use the platform. Facebook/T-nation didn’t create their platform to facilitate illegal activities. It’s just an unintended consequence of the product. The same can be said for many things. Drunk driving is an unintended consequence of the auto industry. The abuse of painkillers is an unintended consequence of the Pharm industry. So on and so forth. While I agree it’s a legit question, I think holding manufacturers accountable for actions taken out of their control is a very slippery slope.
2 Likes
That deserves an “A-MEN!”, Brother!
2 Likes
But wouldn’t the response to this be: once a site is aware of that consequence it becomes complicit.
Alcoholic beverages would be the better choice over the auto industry.
Or is it the responsibility of those who prescribe them?
That might be the response for some. My response would be, do you really want the stockholders of Facebook determining what is or isn’t illegal actions?
Sure, some posts/communities would be black/white, but how about memes slandering a politician, for example?
It’s not perfect, but I prefer law enforcement, lawyers, and judiciaries determine these things not a group of tech geeks.
To what, watch them take every pill as prescribed? Or prescribe drugs by day and patrol the streets for the illegal sale of Vicodin at night?
You’re prescribed a drug it’s on you to use it correctly, imo.
Is that what they would do? I mean, FB can say something someone posts is illegal but they can’t do anything more than report it and leave the actual determination up to the authorities.
I think the real issue is the fact that FB somehow became so damn important and relevant to our lives, even to people like me who don’t have an account and never will have an account. I don’t care how FB polices itself and who gets pissed about it. It was created for kids by kids. Besides, FB is all about money so in the end, the shareholders will still control things based on their bottom lines.
I guess it depends on how you define “under the supervision of a doctor.”
If they’re open to legal ramifications, both criminal and civil, I think they’d censor anything that’s even remotely questionable.
Right, but we’re talking about what they’ll allow on their platform. Since they’re now open to litigation in this scenario I think they’d just take it down. They already censor a lot of stuff anyway. This would just be the next logical step to protect themselves from a lawsuit.
It’s just the next evolution of communication, imo. People used to sit around and look at photobooks. Now they just look at Facebook photobooks. People used to talk shit about people over their landline stretched to the next room. Now they just do it via Facebook.
Sure, which is basically my point. They will censor content more so under this scenario because their wallets are now on the hook more so than before.
You may not like facebook, which is perfectly fine, but it (social media in general) isn’t going anywhere and there’s a lot more to it than just “check this cat picture out”.
As an aside, I was watching River Monsters (might be called something else now) with Jeremy Wade last night and a Chinese activist was using social media to make companies aware of the insane levels of pollution Chinese manufacturers were dumping in the Yangtze. The end result was a reduction in pollution because American companies like Apple forced the manufacturer’s hand. Point being, social media can be more than just mindless meme sharing.
I suppose. Maybe we can have government agents monitor how many calories we eat next.
LOL
3 Likes
Just when you think this couldn’t get any weirder…
2 Likes
You ever notice how Trump and Sean are never in the same place at the same time?
Coincidence?
3 Likes
Those two sharing one brain makes a lot of sense, yes.
1 Like
I’m shocked–shocked!–that a journalist with the integrity, ethics and probity of Hannity would repeatedly criticize the Cohen raid without mentioning that Cohen was his lawyer.
3 Likes
He’s cutting his teeth to become the head of FEMA. Cuz if he can keep his client list out of prison, he has definitely proven his abilities in disaster management.
4 Likes
Remains to be seen.
It’s been a few days now. I couldn’t remember the details about the Scooter Libby case.
This is pretty fascinating, from Judith Miller, formerly of the NYT. Her testimony was instrumental in finding him guilty, and she talks about why it was wrong.
The issue is less about the pardon per se than it is about the timing of the pardon.
1 Like