sdw2001

Mike Wuerthele said:

sdw2001 said:

Really disappointed in the inaccurate and baseless commentary within the article.  

The bill is the first at a state level taking on a perceived problem of political content suppression, claims that have repeatedly been made before, during, and after the last U.S. Presidential election. 

The way this is written is really biased.  Calling it a "perceived problem" implies that those who believe that large platforms discriminate on ideological groups are somehow wrong or to be dismissed. Moreover, stating that the "claims" have been made "repeatedly" around the Presidential election is sly way of tying those who point out the bias as being tied to the former President, election fraud claims, and January 6th.   Finally, AI links to its own article on a political content suppression lawsuit being dismissed. This further undermines the view that political content suppression is real.  

Reasonable people can disagree on if such suppression is happening and to what extent, but if the author wants to take a position, he should do so directly.  If not, it should be written from as neutral a POV as possible.  

Unless other laws are passed to strip "personhood" from corporations, Florida's new law is not likely to survive a challenge to the Constitutionality of the law.

On what is this based?  It has nothing to do with "personhood" under the law.  It's about requiring transparency for censorship and allowing people to sue under Florida law. Either way, it's a wholly unsupported opinion.   

While Apple doesn't operate a social network directly, it has become the target of criticism over Parler, a right-wing social media app

Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app.  That is patently false.  Parler is a free speech app.  It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center.  It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.  

None of what you are saying about how the article is written is accurate.

For instance: The law won't pass a first amendment challenge. It won't pass a first amendment challenge, because corporations have a long history of being able to be defined as people under the law, as the first applies. There are 30 years of precedent on this ground alone.

When Apple cut off Parler, we had discussions with the founder at some length. I'm pretty comfortable with AI calling it a "right-wing social media app" given that the founder called it that.

Just because you do not agree with what the article says based on your opinion on the matter, does not make it "inaccurate" or "baseless commentary."

It's ironic that your first sentence is nothing but an opinion.  And it's one I fully disagree with.  

The article offers the opinion that the law is unlikely to survive a Constitutional challenge.  That opinion is unsupported.  It is not at all clear that a "personhood" argument would apply here.  Yes, there is much precedent for corporations legally being considered people when it comes to speech.  But this law is not so much about corporate speech per se.  It's about the speech of the people who use the platforms.  The bottom line is it's a statement of opinion that really doesn't have a place here, at least in my view.  As for your opinion, you're welcome to it.  Neither of us are attorneys as far as I know, so how much weight people give that opinion is an open question.  

If you want to call Parler a right-wing  social media app, go right ahead.  My statement was that it wasn't marketed that way.  I actually was on the platform and I follow one of its biggest backers closely.  I never heard it promoted that way.  It was a free speech platform, one that conservatives flocked to.  

My opinion is this is a biased article that offers unsupported opinions as well as an inaccurate description of Parler.  It's not a question of "not liking" anything. I just find it disappointing.  I think the article could have been done in a more neutral way.  

JaiOh81 said:

Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app.  That is patently false.  Parler is a free speech app.  It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center.  It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.  

You either know nothing about Parlor or you’re just flat out lying. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the group think is harassed and threatened on Parlor. It’s all about free speech but only if it’s the “right” kind of speech. 

So.... know nothing, but you can't even spell the name of the app right?  Were you even on Parler? Because I was.  I never much liked it...definitely not as functional as Twitter.  If you have examples of "harassment," I suggest you post them.  

lordjohnwhorfin said:

They’re fierce defenders of the rights of corporations to funnel as much money as they want into political campaigns… only as long as it’s theirs. The second corporations dare to oppose them, their first amendment right goes out the window. Laughable.

Not so much anymore.  The Republican party is no longer instinctively defending corporations.  It's a shift that really started under Trump.  The party is going a more populist direction.  It's really moved away from the Chamber of Commerce, establishment "intellectual conservative" crowd.  At least, that is what the base of the party is becoming.  I certainly won't defend many of the actual politicians.  

Really disappointed in the inaccurate and baseless commentary within the article.  

The bill is the first at a state level taking on a perceived problem of political content suppression, claims that have repeatedly been made before, during, and after the last U.S. Presidential election. 

The way this is written is really biased.  Calling it a "perceived problem" implies that those who believe that large platforms discriminate on ideological groups are somehow wrong or to be dismissed. Moreover, stating that the "claims" have been made "repeatedly" around the Presidential election is sly way of tying those who point out the bias as being tied to the former President, election fraud claims, and January 6th.   Finally, AI links to its own article on a political content suppression lawsuit being dismissed. This further undermines the view that political content suppression is real.  

Reasonable people can disagree on if such suppression is happening and to what extent, but if the author wants to take a position, he should do so directly.  If not, it should be written from as neutral a POV as possible.  

Unless other laws are passed to strip "personhood" from corporations, Florida's new law is not likely to survive a challenge to the Constitutionality of the law.

On what is this based?  It has nothing to do with "personhood" under the law.  It's about requiring transparency for censorship and allowing people to sue under Florida law. Either way, it's a wholly unsupported opinion.   

While Apple doesn't operate a social network directly, it has become the target of criticism over Parler, a right-wing social media app

Parler is not a "right-wing" social media app.  That is patently false.  Parler is a free speech app.  It was and is populated by conservatives and libertarians, but welcomes all viewpoints, including those left of center.  It was never designed or marketed to be a right-wing social media app.  

AniMill said:

I just can’t see a future where an external boot-disc does not exist…or don’t want too. I just did a complete rebuild of my iMac Pro to clean it up. I first did a CCC of the internal boot SSD, making another SSD externally bootable. This was critical to keeping my workflow viable, in case the wipe/rebuild failed. The complete macOS Big Sur reinstall from the Mac Recovery went smoothly, only one minor glitch. But if I hadn’t solved that glitch, I’d been hosed for a while. CCC is one macOS’s most critical applications.

I've done similar tithings with my MBPs.  But I haven't always used CCC.  I rebuilt the drive for my old 2009 MBP recently.  I just saved all my data to an external drive, did a clean install of the OS, and migrated my data back.  Granted, it wasn't my main computer. But with most things on the cloud now, I'm not sure a drive being bootable is all that important.  It's much easier to have cloud and redundant data backup in my view, get the drive fixed or replaced, then go from there.  Many people have backup devices and can access their workflow from anywhere.