That's poor compensation
Clown Car VI: Hello, Goodbye. On to 2024.
- Thread starter AmazonQueen
- Start date
Xena: Warrior Princess, was most certainly much better than Hercules: The Legend Continues, but that was a pretty low bar... and we could have had the one without the other.
Who is they?
Aussies. I've heard they aren't regularly hunted because people don't want to eat them.
Well, maybe I heard wrong.
Ferocitus
Deity
Emu is quite Ok. Like gamey chicken.
OTOH, koalas and cockatoos are both notoriously awful tasting.
I've heard the koalas taste bad because they eat eucalyptus leaves.
My understanding of the rules as they currently are, is that the Senate parliamentarian provides an advisory opinion about whether an item in the reconciliation package is budget related, and then the chair of the Senate (i.e. VP Harris) decides whether to accept or reject that opinion. Given the political questions doctrine in the US, it's no doubt non-justiciable, so if the Democrats believe that the minimum wage is budget related (which it appears to be, given the CBO considers a raise in the minimum wage will increase the deficit), refusing to overrule any adverse opinion of the parliamentarian would seem a choice.
If I understand the procedure right.
Don't know if it's a thing in the US, but common law tradition at least is that barristers don't shake hands.
Ferocitus
Deity
And for ruining Andromeda. For example:For having such a terrible show? He deserves to be banned... that show was awful.
Dylan: Mythology? It's all Greek to me.
The defense rests.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Facebook, Twitter, et al. are the de facto public forum. It is not unreasonable to say that people have, to some degree, a right to use these platform, and that right should not be curtailed arbitrarily. That they are legally private platforms is a problem, rather than a justification.
It depends on your point of view. I would say that the fact that people treat them as the de facto public forum for no very good reason is the problem.
Define "arbitrarily" in this context?
Also yes, as Samson said, the problem is people treating such things as a public forum when they nominally are in specific situations. I have seen harassment justified as "you shouldn't have your account open" on Facebook despite the drawbacks that come with making your account private (on a social media platform). Twitter is about interacting with people you want to interact with. The problems set in when it comes to the capitalistic venture of profit-driven enterprise, whereby Twitter doesn't want to separate genuine engagement (between people who want to engage) and bad-faith harassment or the like (because they're both traffic on the platform, ultimately).
There's also a conflation here between a right to use a problem and how those rights are curtailed. If your argument is that we cannot moderate harmful beliefs because that would trend to the moderation of harmless beliefs, that's the age-old debate of moderation and its purpose in communities. Not the access to those communities in the first place. Not a "right".
There is good reason, though. Many people actually need FB (or Twitter) for their job. It is far easier to announce online or offline seminars/lectures etc that way. And with years you do build your audience and easily keep in touch with them.
It's why I never, for any reason at all, post political stuff on FB - I would really be in trouble if I got banned (I suppose I could just make a new account and only use it for groups, but it'd still be a nuisance).
Sure. That still doesn't countermand the rules of being on the platform on the first place, though. The issue is if these rules are enforced unfairly (which they often can be).
So instead of a theoretical, let's take Sorbo's actual case. Does he need Facebook for his job (whatever it apparently is these days). If it's anything like his Twitter feed, I would argue it's not relevant to his job. It is a platform he is using to spread his personal opinions, that he only has by dint of his (former) acting career. There will always be a need for moderation on community platforms, nomatter who they're run by. Was Sorbo's treatment unfair? Was he providing a valid service that Facebook have unfairly or unreasonably cut short? Or were they simply, by the now famous XKCD, showing him the door?
Of course, the real joke with the moderation of for-profit enterprises like Facebook and Twitter is that because the bottom line is profit, personalities like Sorbo would not get booted of the platform for offenses that others would. Because he is famous, and drives traffic, means he is immune to so much of the normal regulation and red tape that would affect users such as you (if you use it) or I. The fact that he was actually removed in any capacity means he was a threat to their profit model far above and beyond your average user of the platform. He was being unprofitable, and in capitalism there isn't much of a greater crime
I disagree with the "need". I understand that using facebook you "pay" for them to do the web hosting, SEO and a certain amount of customer engagement with your personal data. I have advertised and sold such content in before FB days, and I understand that dealing with making the website, organising hosting, doing SEO and perhaps paid advertising is a certain amount of work, but it is not that hard and I know you could do if you had to. That people assume that the only way is FB really is the problem, from my point of view.
Sure. That still doesn't countermand the rules of being on the platform on the first place, though. The issue is if these rules are enforced unfairly (which they often can be).
So instead of a theoretical, let's take Sorbo's actual case. Does he need Facebook for his job (whatever it apparently is these days). If it's anything like his Twitter feed, I would argue it's not relevant to his job. It is a platform he is using to spread his personal opinions, that he only has by dint of his (former) acting career. There will always be a need for moderation on community platforms, nomatter who they're run by. Was Sorbo's treatment unfair? Was he providing a valid service that Facebook have unfairly or unreasonably cut short? Or were they simply, by the now famous XKCD, showing him the door?
Of course, the real joke with the moderation of for-profit enterprises like Facebook and Twitter is that because the bottom line is profit, personalities like Sorbo would not get booted of the platform for offenses that others would. Because he is famous, and drives traffic, means he is immune to so much of the normal regulation and red tape that would affect users such as you (if you use it) or I. The fact that he was actually removed in any capacity means he was a threat to their profit model far above and beyond your average user of the platform. He was being unprofitable, and in capitalism there isn't much of a greater crime
Yes, if he was less known/had fewer people following him, it would be more difficult to get on the radar. Anyway, I haven't read any of his views, I just don't see him as the dangerous type (then again, maybe he is some fundamentalist who prepares the second coming by enabling the rebuilding of the temple of Solomon - it is the US, after all)
It's not the only way, but it is very convenient - so it means something... Can't use Linkedin or such for the same purpose (at least not in Greece).
He was making statements about the insurrection in January. Given the legal connotations of that, uh, event, tech companies have been falling over themselves to ensure they're not liable in any capacity. There has been a similar thing with anti-mask sentiments, with tech companies actually starting to act on misinformation because of how big and all-encompassing the pandemic has gotten.
Now, you can criticise that they're being selective about the events they choose to moderate and you'd be 100% right. But that doesn't mean what they did moderate in this instance wasn't dangerous (helping incite insurrectionist beliefs). He did something similar on Twitter as far as I'm aware.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,614
Almost all birds are enormous jackasses to things much bigger than them. Then again, I happily eat them, so it's not like it isn't warranted. Farm geese and children is a notorious trope, isn't it? I don't know what's still in popular culture. Either way, I almost killed one of my friend's turkeys(prematurely, like a pig a turkey has one use) when I was much smaller. The fourth or fifth time it came after me(it wasn't sneaky) I picked up a piece of scrap metal to wing at it. Clocked it in the back of the head(accidentally). It did somersaults for the rest of the day.
For having such a terrible show? He deserves to be banned... that show was awful.
It took a sort of glee in knowing it was terrible. It was risque and booby, but tame by today's standards. It was violent and dumb, but not by today's standards. Sometimes you just want to watch a bad show like Hercules, or C-SPAN.
Ferocitus
Deity
Big fat birds that don't fly well (or at all) have a nasty habit of going extinct.
Serves them right for being delicious.
Thank goodness someone got the bright idea to farm-raise chickens instead of just hunting them... or they'd be extinct too.
And the yummiest non-avian of them all?
Similar threads
