- Messages
- 1,879
I think it was ZenModeOn. I was just teasing about trhl777 on account of a similar grasp of evolutionary biology.Why are you so coy about your IC username? You must be very embarrassed by your posting history.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think it was ZenModeOn. I was just teasing about trhl777 on account of a similar grasp of evolutionary biology.Why are you so coy about your IC username? You must be very embarrassed by your posting history.
Are you suggesting a moral equivalency between the historic , continuing, and new harms caused by racial prejudice to the harms of copyright law violation?I really do appreciate how the board’s PTBs were faced with a challenge when dealing with racist hate speech. Beyond the obvious slurs, it becomes a grey area, and I can see how Uncle Tom would be offensive to a protected class. I tried to find a replacement term that conveys the same meaning. Kapo hit the mark, and I found no indication that it could convey bigotry or an offensive connotation to a protected class. I still don’t see that but was forced instead to rely upon awkward phrasing such as “a member of a class that trades on their antagonistic stance toward members of their class to achieve status and other gain via support from bigots.” It all reeks of performative political correctness to appease rightist critics; I complied albeit grudgingly.
But you still haven’t answered my question: What is the explanation for the board’s double standard of exacting to the point of mental gymnastics enforcement of “hate speech” vs never mind about posting copyrighted material?
I mean, regardless of Xitter’s rules, this is a much simpler call under the board rules to judge.
Again, it’s capriciousness.
I've answered the copyright question, do you just not understand it?I really do appreciate how the board’s PTBs were faced with a challenge when dealing with racist hate speech. Beyond the obvious slurs, it becomes a grey area, and I can see how Uncle Tom would be offensive to a protected class. I tried to find a replacement term that conveys the same meaning. Kapo hit the mark, and I found no indication that it could convey bigotry or an offensive connotation to a protected class. I still don’t see that but was forced instead to rely upon awkward phrasing such as “a member of a class that trades on their antagonistic stance toward members of their class to achieve status and other gain via support from bigots.” It all reeks of performative political correctness to appease rightist critics; I complied albeit grudgingly.
But you still haven’t answered my question: What is the explanation for the board’s double standard of exacting to the point of mental gymnastics enforcement of “hate speech” vs never mind about posting copyrighted material?
I mean, regardless of Xitter’s rules, this is a much simpler call under the board rules to judge.
Again, it’s capriciousness.
Neither.Are you suggesting a moral equivalency between the historic , continuing, and new harms caused by racial prejudice to the harms of copyright law violation?
Are you further suggesting that you have no knowledge of the Fair Use doctrine?
Fair use - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
...
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
In short, we must often ... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
I understand your point: if Xitter and the WSJ don’t care that we allow the wholesale republication of their copyrighted material, then why should we?I've answered the copyright question, do you just not understand it?
Twitter wants tweets shared far and wide. They created and continue to support the ability of their software that allows those tweets to be shared far and wide. There is no practical copyright issue at play here.
I've already said that the mods should have likely done a better job enforcing copyright for articles and the like that weren't publicly available.
What do you not understand in that?
What is the difference between sharing a sharable gift link to a 100% copyrighted WaPO article that the WaPo explicitly makes available, and sharing a link to a (copyrighted? If, so, by whom? The author? Twitter?) Tweet via a shareable link that Twitter explicitly makes available?Neither.
My point is that rules serve the purpose of establishing board standards for the benefit of the community, and capricious enforcement inevitably leads to negative consequences, such as loss of confidence in authority and the inevitable diminution in quality.
I realize that some may not view the Xittification as a loss but that’s my take. Hypocrisy also has moral consequences.
See aboveWhat is the difference between sharing a sharable link to a 100% copyrighted WaPO article that the WaPo explicitly makes available, and sharing a link to a (copyrighted? If, so, by whom? The author? Twitter?) Tweet via a shareable link that Twitter explicitly makes available?
TBH, I'm not really sure what's going on here. It seems you have an axe to grind and have chosen a wildly baffling line of reasoning to grind that axe. Dunno, Can't really help you out much further, becuse I really don't have a clue where you're coming from.
Just giving you a hard time. I try to keep it light as much as possible on the board.Ha! Fair enough. I do just want to point out, though, that rarely do I proactively instigate any shit talking to another poster unprovoked (incidentally, I did do it on this thread with the yellow jacket dude, whom I simply don’t like). The vast majority of my trash talking is almost always in response to some moron deciding to engage me first when I’ve said nothing to them in particular. When that happens, I am more than happy to indulge them- I’ve been very honest for a while now that it is a character flaw of mine.
That’s why you’re one of my very favorites!Just giving you a hard time. I try to keep it light as much as possible on the board.
Interesting. Had to be an interesting lead up to that.
An agency i believe. I think they rep LeBronWho or what is klutch?
You are very confused.See above
You have to be fucking kidding me. Did you read wikipedia?. Kapo hit the mark, and I found no indication that it could convey bigotry or an offensive connotation to a protected class.
"Typically" isn't "always"and adding an emotional factor does negate the core meaning.it clearly is. this is such a strange hill that you've chosen to die on here.
again, per oxford:
ab·nor·mal
/abˈnôrm(ə)l/
adjective
deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.
I have no reason to provide it. It was from, I'm guessing, well over a decade ago when I had much different views and a much diffent approach to posting.Why are you so coy about your IC username? You must be very embarrassed by your posting history.
That's pretty much an admission that you were a terrible poster and you know that revealing it would color the discussion against you.I have no reason to provide it. It was from, I'm guessing, well over a decade ago when I had much different views and a much diffent approach to posting.