251–260 of 491 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a style of web design I’ve seen before - lots of colors, different font sizes, wall of text rants... something about it screams mental instability. See Time Cube for an extreme example.
I think you should consider her age. She is 39 (old) so it is hard to keep up with the new trends in web design and movie making, plus she doesn't look very smart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a style of web design I’ve seen before - lots of colors, different font sizes, wall of text rants... something about it screams mental instability. See Time Cube for an extreme example.
back in the 90's it was extremely common to see lots of colors, especially on a black background.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The platforms today are so large, it surely can seem like being cut off from society in general, like a human right is being revoked. probably similar to say imagine Bell's denying a landline in 197x because of your speech.
There are a bunch of these in society that are interesting and very deserving of more public discussion, including that one (broadly communication access). Given the importance to work and life of having access to the wireless networks today, owned by AT&T, Verizon etc., should they be allowed to blanket deny you access to them as a customer (assuming you can pay)? Especially given the wireless carriers are essential…
That's an oligopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Elliot Rodgers videos are still up on YouTube, though. On the balance, it’s probably more helpful to allow people to understand what led up to these events rather than suppressing the shooter’s words for the sake of some theoretical safety benefit.
> On the balance, it’s probably more helpful [] Although this is negated by the strong positive correlation between media coverage of a shooting and an uptick in following shootings (which I'd suggest is more than "some theoretical safety benefit".) cf http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> She should have did affiliate marketing & patreon. And, like, ... not shot people.
It's funny how often that's a bad solution to a problem. Not always mind you ... but mostly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that would be illegal because phone companies are “common carriers”? Not sure if that was true in the 70s.
The implication being that private companies (Google, Facebook, etc.) now fill the role that common carriers did a few decades ago, and that, curiously, they enjoy many of the privileges usually allotted to common carriers (eg. can't be prosecuted for content passing through their networks) without the responsibilities.
This looks like it's going to be an increasingly big problem for the platform giants, as it pertains to their increasingly aggressive speech restrictions. As they ramp those restrictions up, I'd expect the need for security to increase accordingly. A mentally unwell person is likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by being silenced. They'll feel isolated and it'll very likely feel like a persona…
Getting paid to express your opinion is not a human right.