Muda69

From the comments of recent story about this incident that I read:

Protesting Police Violence Is Critical. But Why Are the Social Distance Shamers Suddenly So Quiet? https://reason.com/2020/05/31/george-floyd-protesters-coronavirus-social-distancing-shame/ Deafening indeed.

Jake Paul Swears He Wasn't Looting, Just Being His Usual Shitty Self https://gizmodo.com/jake-paul-swears-he-wasnt-looting-just-being-his-usual-1843809147 This is about 50% of everybody observed at these incident sites. They are not protesters or looters or vandals, just people there trying to get more instagram or tik-tok views by saying "look at me, I was there!!!!!!!".

http://kokomoperspective.com/kp/hcsd-correctional-officer-resigns-after-alleged-hit-and-run-at-protest/article_c2f6049c-a366-11ea-9938-cb413d901241.html Justice is taking much too long here. That former correctional officer should be arrested then hit with a vehicle, right?

Report: piles of bricks are being staged in cities around the country, indicating riots are planned https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/report-piles-of-bricks-are-being-staged-in-cities-around-the-country-indicating-riots-are-planned/ “The Dallas protest was a lot of things,” said National Urban League Young Professionals Communications Chairman Reuben Lael in a Facebook post on Saturday. “But I was very disappointed to see this RANDOM stack of bricks in front of the courthouse. #setup. Someone else in the video noted that there wasn’t any type of construction going on anywhere in the immediate vicinity where the bricks were piled up. “There ain’t no damn construction around here,” the voice said. “You’re just gonna set a pallet of bricks right there.” .... Smells like Soros.

Exactly what kind of justice do all these protesters want for the deceased Mr. Floyd? Are "the wheels of justice" regarding his alleged murderer and accomplices turning too slowly for there liking? Do they really want a Judge Dredd kind of system:

Poll: Democrats underperforming with black voters https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/24/blackpac-poll-democrats-117243

Will grocery shopping ever be the same after the pandemic? https://www.jconline.com/story/money/2020/05/28/rebuilding-america-will-grocery-shopping-ever-be-the-same/5191210002/ Personally I haven't been inside a big box retailer since early March. I've frequented small local businesses but other purchasing is done via delivery or pick-up.

Downtown Indianapolis protests turn tense: police use tear gas, shots fired at deputy https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/indianapolis/2020/05/29/indianapolis-police-shooting-two-dozen-protest-dreasjon-reed-death/5286076002/ Violence is never the answer. And with the government ruining the economy with the coronavirus shutdown odds are most of these protesters are now unemployed. Just more fuel to add to the fire. I have a child and in-law who are currently living near downtown Indianapolis. They are temporarily leaving their apartment for safer environs.

The irony is any uni-party candidate flag placed next to an American flag.

George Floyd’s Death Must Be a Catalyst for Accountability https://www.cato.org/blog/officer-involved-killing-george-floyd

Thank you.

They have hashtags before their names?

Bingo. Another one of the problems with having Public Section Unions.

https://reason.com/2020/05/28/minneapolis-police-killed-george-floyd-then-failed-to-protect-property-owners-from-riots/ So exactly what would have mollified these many in Minneapolis who have resorted to violence? The immediate sentencing and execution of these four police officers?

? What is this?

Protestors Criticized For Looting Businesses Without Forming Private Equity Firm First https://www.theonion.com/protestors-criticized-for-looting-businesses-without-fo-1843735351

Not necessarily. What exactly is inaccurate about swordfish's statement then?

I disagree. No, I don't believe it is.

They are two completely different situations that occurred in two different states, are they not? And is "yelling and screaming" a violent act?

Three Ways Lockdowns Are Costing Human Lives https://mises.org/wire/three-ways-lockdowns-are-costing-human-lives

But it's a hybrid model. Did you even read the article or view the video? FTA: Combine this with a bunch of cardboard cutouts of fans: https://nypost.com/2020/04/30/german-soccer-fans-fill-empty-stadium-with-cardboard-cutouts/ Combine these two elements, charge a $5.00 fee to view a live stream of the football game, and voila! you have the experience the fans want, the stadium atmosphere the players desire, and an income stream the AD's desperately need. And the venue saves $ because it doesn't have to stock a concession stand, deal with the the food handling certification hassles imposed by governments, have people come in to clean the stadium after the game, and you save wear and tear on other parts of the campus like the parking lots.

Trump's Executive Order on Twitter Is a Total Mess https://reason.com/2020/05/28/trumps-executive-order-on-twitter-is-a-total-mess/ Interestingly, after years of downplaying the idea that foreign actors used social media in an attempt to influence the 2016 election, Trump now opportunistically claims that the U.S. government must have power over these platforms to stop the scourge of "disinformation from foreign governments." But his biggest complaint is about alleged ideological bias by private companies. Despite previously rallying around the rights of conservative businesses to choose who they do business with and decline to display liberal messages (think florists and bakers), Trump now says that private businesses should have to be totally content-neutral conduits of whatever messages that customers want to broadcast. To justify his position that the feds can compel companies to display messages from private citizens and government officials alike, Trump turns to a mangled conception of the federal law known as Section 230. This is the 1990s statute stipulating that online platforms and publishers are not to be treated as the speaker of user-generated content (i.e., if I defame someone on Facebook, Facebook isn't on the hook for defamation). The order erroneously suggests that Section 230 only applies if online companies moderate content in ways that are explicitly laid out in their terms of service, though nothing in Section 230 comes close to saying this. It complains that Twitter has been "restricting online content" for reasons other than those laid out as permissible reasons in Section 230(c)(2). This is the part of the statute saying companies don't become liable for all user content by virtue of moderating content that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable." But "otherwise objectionable" is a completely discretionary standard and can encompass just about anything. The order relies heavily on conservatives' victimhood conspiracy du jour: that social media companies are colluding to suppress conservative voices. It's an objectively untrue viewpoint, as countless booted and suspended liberal, libertarian, and apolitical accounts can tell you. But even if it were true that Twitter or Facebook only takes action against conservatives—or if we take the more believable assertion that current content moderation policies tend to hit some political viewpoints harder than others—it would still not fall outside the bounds of Section 230(c)(2) moderation, which requires only that the moderator find some speech to be "objectionable." Somehow, out of Trump's several paragraphs of paraphrasing Section 230 with random erroneous asides, federal officials are supposed to intuit a new paradigm and "apply section 230(c) according to the interpretation set out in this section." The document also instructs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to define concepts that Trump just made up for this order and then propose ways to tell if companies are running afoul of them. Trump wants the FCC to determine the conditions under which content moderation will be considered "deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider's terms of service"—but then what? Nothing in Section 230 says a company can't moderate in ways "inconsistent with" their terms of service. And it's laughable to think that bureaucrats will be able to tell whether thousands of individual content moderators are making decisions based on the right reasons or on secretly "deceptive" grounds. The FCC is also tasked with defining this bit of Trumpian gobbledygook: the conditions under which content moderation will be considered "the result of inadequate notice, the product of unreasoned explanation, or having been undertaking without a meaningful opportunity to be heard." One of the most concrete parts of the executive order, and perhaps the only feasible part, is a bit saying that all federal agencies must review and submit (within 30 days) a report on the amount of money they spend on social media advertising. It comes in a section titled "Prohibition on Spending Federal Taxpayer Dollars on Advertising with Online Platforms That Violate Free Speech Principles." Insofar as this order helps keep stupid government propaganda campaigns off social media and reduces what the public pays for those campaigns, great! Alas, Trump doesn't really have any clue what the criteria for preventing these ads might be and didn't bother finding out whether he has the statutory authority to require this before writing the order. It actually asks the heads of each executive department and agency to independently review "the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform" and then tell Trump "the statutory authorities available to restrict advertising dollars to online platforms." The second-to-last part of the order is another bit that sounds vaguely weighty but is actually just a bunch of big words sort of strung together in the way that might fool random Trump fans into thinking he's taking action. He declares that Facebook and Twitter are "the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum"—which would essentially mean that they are the "functional equivalent" of government property. But of course, Trump has no authority to simply seize these private companies via executive order. And even if he could just declare that Twitter and Facebook were the digital equivalent of the National Mall, this would mean that government actors would face serious hurdles to restricting speech on them. Bottom line: Unless government officials are going to completely take over Twitter and Facebook content moderation, invoking public forums here is just bluster. Ultimately, the order's lack of standard review very much shows. It seems the White House apparently didn't consult with the Federal Communications Commission about the order, which would mean it did not go through the standard interagency review process. "Worth remembering that with prior WH attempts to draft an executive order targeting social media companies, the FCC and FTC (which are led by Republican chairmen) privately pushed back on being deputized to police political speech on social platforms," noted CNN tech reporter Brian Fung on Twitter. "Much of the order could quickly get bogged down in a thicket of legal and constitutional questions," Fung added. "Just for example, the FTC reports to Congress, not the WH." Good luck with this one, King Trump.

Forget about those end zone cameras, here is the next football purchase every AD out there should make: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/05/yamahas-remote-cheerer-brings-fan-applause-back-to-empty-stadiums/