Muda69

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/

Nursing Homes Account for 42 Percent of America's COVID-19 Fatalities https://reason.com/2020/05/27/nursing-homes-account-for-42-percent-of-americas-covid-19-fatalities/

The Spread of the Debt Virus https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/national-debt-washington-postponing-frightening-choices/

It's also better to look good than to be good:

I wouldn't want to immediately drive a car that has essentially sat for seven years. Any gasoline in the tank needs to be drained and refilled, the oil and filter need to be replaced. The battery needs replacement. The tires need to be thoroughly inspected, sitting on (probably) concrete in one position for seven years may have caused them to go out of round. Is the state of Indiana going to pay for these services? Should they?

The Hydroxychloroquine Controversy Is a Reminder That Prescription Laws Are a Government Racket https://mises.org/wire/hydroxychloroquine-controversy-reminder-prescription-laws-are-government-racket The FDA's latest statement that taking “any drug” is a decision between doctors and patients contrasts sharply with the one it made a little over three weeks prior regarding HCQ. On April 24, the agency cautioned against using HCQ “for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems.” Although not a direct contradiction, the May 19 statement makes a substantial difference in the April 24 statement’s effect. That’s because it’s reasonable to expect that the FDA will typically enforce its opinions through a perceived threat of coercion. As investigative reporter James Bovard wrote in this space last month, the FDA has a history of using intimidation tactics to secure compliance with unfinalized prohibitions, including against “off-label” drug treatments. In 1991, then FDA commissioner Dr. David Kessler told the Drug Information Association that the FDA would use seizures, injunctions, and prosecutions to enforce its ban on drug companies sharing “off-label” use information with doctors. The ban was never formalized, but Kessler said: “I would urge all members of the pharmaceutical industry to take a long and hard look at their promotional practices. I do not expect companies to wait until this guidance becomes final to put their advertising and promotional houses in order.” Kessler would not be proud of the current FDA head, who concedes that “ultimately” doctors and patients have the decision-making power over drug use. In 1992, Kessler said quite the opposite: At least Kessler was more consistent than Hahn is. There’s no sign that Hahn will follow through his words that doctors and patients may decide how “any drug” should or shouldn’t be taken. That’s too bad, because when the doctor-patient relationship isn’t interrupted by bureaucratic third parties or red tape, it is the strongest bulwark against drug and prescription abuses. What benefit is a layer of FDA regulations that simply restrict everyone’s freedom for the sake of those who will circumnavigate the rules, anyway? The principle is more commonly accepted in the gun control debate, but it is the same in the prescription drug control debate. Trump got it right when he said people should be allowed to decide for themselves. His words clearly influenced the FDA’s messaging. We can allow ourselves a little hope, but realistically, substantial reform towards more freedom in medicine may have to wait until a worse crisis demands it.

Another happy update: Indiana Returns Land Rover Seized 7 Years Ago in Landmark Asset Forfeiture Case https://reason.com/2020/05/27/indiana-returns-land-rover-seized-7-years-ago-in-landmark-asset-forfeiture-case/ Sickening that the Indiana Attorney General is still pursuing this. A complete waste of taxpayers's dollars and the time of Indiana state attorneys. As one of the comments to this update states: Also I wonder if the State kept up on the regularly scheduled maintenance of Mr. Timb's vehicles in the 7 YEARS it took them to return it?

An coronavirus pandemic related story: John Kraskinski slammed as 'sellout' over 'Some Good News' deal with CBS https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/john-kraskinski-slammed-selling-some-good-new\ You create something, then you can sell it if you wish. It's called capitalism, the American Way.

NY Times on Memorial Day Weekend: US Military celebrates white supremacism https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-memorial-day-weekend-us-military-celebrates-white-supremacism This travesty is obviously Mr. Trump's fault. He should have ordered this bases renamed the day he first took office.

I prefer: https://duckduckgo.com/

Joe Biden's 'Bold' Thinking Shredded Civil Liberties and Destroyed Lives https://reason.com/video/joe-bidens-bold-thinking-shredded-civil-liberties-and-destroyed-lives/

Detassling corn for $ or going to a "voluntary" summer workout.

Why Those COVID-19 Models Aren't Real Science https://mises.org/wire/why-those-covid-19-models-arent-real-science

And to get back on topic: Why Does Trump Want To Stop People From Voting by Mail? https://reason.com/2020/05/21/why-does-trump-want-to-stop-people-from-voting-by-mail/

You fellows do know it's Anakin Skywalker, not Anikan? Sorry, the SW geek in me just couldn't keep letting that slide.

A completely on point breakdown of the entire situation: The New York Times Recoils at the Predictable Consequences of the Mandatory COVID-19 Precautions It Supports https://reason.com/2020/05/20/the-new-york-times-recoils-at-the-predictable-consequences-of-the-mandatory-covid-19-precautions-it-supports/ Contrast that with photographs across social media showing crowds of sun-seekers packed into parks in wealthy, whiter areas of the city, lounging undisturbed as police officers hand out masks…. Without a significant course correction, the [police] department's role in the pandemic may look more and more like stop-and-frisk, the policing tactic that led to the harassment of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, most of them black and Hispanic, while rarely touching white New Yorkers. [Mayor Bill] de Blasio has scoffed at the comparison, though it's not clear why. The "course correction" suggested by the Times—a "public health corps" consisting of "specially trained civilians" who would "fan out across the neighborhoods and parks, helping with pedestrian traffic control and politely encouraging New Yorkers entering parks to protect one another by wearing masks and keeping their distance"—presents problems of its own. While those specially trained civilians presumably would be less likely than police officers to tackle, beat, and tase people for perceived violations of COVID-19 precautions, the potential for violence would still exist. What would a member of this public health corps do if a parkgoer says he intends to keep his distance from other people but is not willing to wear a mask, since he (correctly) views the risk of virus transmission in an uncrowded, open-air environment as negligible? (Fun fact: In New York, a masked person who "congregates" in a public place with "other persons so masked" is guilty of loitering, a violation punishable by up to 15 days in jail.) The Times says "the Police Department would play only a minimal role in this approach." But if cops serve as a backstop in responding to recalcitrant pedestrians, we are back to a situation in which social distancing rules are enforced by blatantly violating them through the physical contact and close proximity required to arrest, book, and jail people (which puts them in an environment where the risk of catching COVID-19 is especially high). We also have to allow for the possibility that disputes between social distancing encouragers (who may not be as polite as they are supposed to be) and uncooperative targets (some of whom will be indignant and perhaps belligerent) will escalate into physical altercations. That danger is by no means theoretical. The Times cannot have it both ways. If COVID-19 precautions are mandatory, they must at some point be legally enforced, with all the risks that entails, including violence and racial discrimination. The public health payoff might justify those risks in certain contexts—if a dense crowd happens to gather in Central Park, for instance, or if subway riders refuse to wear masks (although that was the situation in the video that the Times cites as evidence of overkill). But the risks cannot be eliminated if voluntary compliance is less than perfect, as it always will be. Police officers charged with enforcing mask-wearing and social distancing requirements have to constantly weigh the costs of forcible intervention against the likely benefits. As the Times notes, it is not a task they welcome. "This situation is untenable," says Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Police Benevolent Association. "The NYPD needs to get cops out of the social distancing enforcement business altogether." But that effectively means mandates will become recommendations. And while most people probably will follow those recommendations, out of concern for their own welfare if not out of consideration for others, some won't. The Times can't will away that tradeoff by pretending it does not exist.

Ignorance is voting for a member of the uni-party, for practically any office, especially POTUS.

I thought Joe Biden is the Democratic front runner for the POTUS nomination, and Mr. Yang dropped out? So Mr. Yang's plan to pay for all the new federal spending is to Tax The Rich and institute a VAT. VAT's are a terrible idea for the American economy: https://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/case-against-valueadded-tax https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/how-value-added-tax-would-harm-the-us-economy https://www.marketwatch.com/story/vat-is-a-bad-idea-on-many-levels-2010-05-04 https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/why-the-vat-may-seem-good-in-theory-but-is-bad-in-reality/ https://fee.org/articles/value-added-taxes-make-it-easier-to-raise-taxes-thats-why-governments-love-them/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/11/value-added-tax-vat-rand-paul-ted-cruz/

Exactly. It's something like socialists just don't seem to think or care about. And how will it be payed for? Taxing 'the rich'? Just printing more money, aka Modern Monetary Theory?

Socialism FTW. And your children and grandchildren will be paying for it.

Biden 2020 strategy gives Trump this massive opportunity https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-2020-strategy-gives-trump-opportunity-ben-shapiro