That's poor compensationIt gave us Xena.
That's poor compensationIt gave us Xena.
That's because they're as big as dinosaurs and run as fast as thoroughbred horses. When you're delicious you've got to be big enough to scare most hungry folks away and fast enough to outrun the brave ones.
Who is they?
Emu is quite Ok. Like gamey chicken.They say emus taste bad enough so that people don't hunt them for food.
I've heard the koalas taste bad because they eat eucalyptus leaves.Emu is quite Ok. Like gamey chicken.
OTOH, koalas and cockatoos are both notoriously awful tasting.
But they are the rules in place now. IIRC the process was originally approved by Nixon in legislation he signed just prior to resigning. So it is enshrined in law and not just rule making.
Once the trial was over and all the attorneys were packing up to leave....
A class act for sure. I hope he left a quarter on the lectern.
And for ruining Andromeda. For example:For having such a terrible show? He deserves to be banned... that show was awful.
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.Why would posting on a forum or similar place (FB, Twitter) doesn't give you any rights to compensation if you are terminated. Why should it? FB doesn't cost anything to use. If Sorbo used it to promote himself and his views and then crosses some corporate line/terms of service, then he f'ed up and lost his platform because of his doing. He may not like FB's standards but oh well. It is their platform. It's America; he can sue.
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.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.
Define "arbitrarily" in this context?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.
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).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).
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.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.
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.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)
That's because they're as big as dinosaurs and run as fast as thoroughbred horses. When you're delicious you've got to be big enough to scare most hungry folks away and fast enough to outrun the brave ones.
For having such a terrible show? He deserves to be banned... that show was awful.
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.