Well put mjack.

This was a liability issue IMO.

If anyone goes after Parler for damages due to them allowing insurrection events to be planned, they will quickly go through Parler's cash and move on to whomever they think they could get money out of, and Amazon has that money. Amazon had some cover from calling out Parler before hand, but when they had 2,600 complaints they could not get to, and there have been reports of more domestic terrorism coming up, it is the smart move to limit your liability.

In my company we have tightened our requirements for qualifying trucking companies a few years back to limit liability. As I was told, we can absorb $20,000 if a load of lumber is lost, even if for some reason insurance does not cover it. That is not the issue. The real issue is if there is a fatality, on the other hand, we could be talking about millions. That will blow through most smaller trucking companies cash, and then they will go up the ladder to us. And while we could absorb that, the risk/reward is not worth it. Even though that is a small percentage chance, when you move over 100k loads a year as a company, it is bound to happen.

IMO, that is the same thinking here. Amazon will take a hit, but they are minimizing their future exposure.

you NEVER say this to me

You NEVER put anything well.

In theory that sounds good, until tech giants collude to eliminate competitors. Parlor was Twitter alternative, and now they don’t exist (I personally don’t care about Parlor, functionally they were just a right wing echo chamber and I’m not interested in that and was never on the site - but as an example). Mega corporations are becoming increasingly homogeneous culturally and ideologically, and that doesn’t bode well for heterodox perspectives when the unelected/unaccountable gatekeepers to a given industry all think and act the same.


To the other point, I don’t think social media should ban any elected official while they are in office. It’s a point of public interest to monitor their officials’ statements there. Trump dug his own grave with his social media posting, and that kind of thing could help bury him in a court of law - but imo that’s the job of the law, not heads of social media. I think Europe is ahead of us in their view on big tech and citizen rights, and France and Germany both disagreed with Trumps banning on social media.



I’m certainly NOT a legal expert, but isn’t that what section 230 protects against?

Hey DJ, tonight I'm having Texas style chicken with lemon and chives mayonnaise with oven-baked potatoes and market vegetables

This might make me a poor Texan, but I'm unaware of what that is. lol

What's a Texas-style chicken? Does it wear boots and a hat or something? Is it Tex-Mex?

I'm confused.

so, NYC is cancling all of thire contracts https://www.nbcnews.com/business/busine ... s-n1254103

I don't know but it seems to like mjack's posts

You callin’ me chicken?!?

Mostly, but not against federal crimes if I remember correctly. (Also copyright stuff and something else I forget)

Edit: Found it:

(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.

(5)No effect on sex trafficking law
Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A)any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.

I am guessing the relevent section would be section 18

18 U.S. Code § 2339 - Harboring or concealing terrorists
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), section 175 (relating to biological weapons), section 229 (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), paragraph (2) or (3) of section 844(f) (relating to arson and bombing of government property risking or causing injury or death), section 1366(a) (relating to the destruction of an energy facility), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2332a (relating to weapons of mass destruction), or section 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries) of this title, section 236(a) (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284(a)), or section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) of title 49, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b)A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.

so,while driving around randomly i came upon a battle between miltech and some guards, i decided to end the battle.

I has a screen shot from BlackOps 1 on my PS3 from a game of Domination. I had been cooking a grenade when I see the blinky-blinky of a sticky grenade come up over the horizon, I cook for a half second longer and release catching the simtek midair with my grenades explosion.

Too bad I can only look at that screen shot when I fire up my ps3.

You're screen shot looks awesome too. I guess you killed both sides?

You said earlier you played thru 3 times already? How long is the content? Are you skipping a bunch of side missions? Or is that how the game is constructed, you play thru multiple times from different perspectives?





I think I'm going to use my stimulus package to buy 900 lottery tickets. That's a sure thing that I'll win and then I'll be a millionaire. I'm a genius! See you guys in Turks & Caicos!

If I won the lottery I would put the money in a trust and otherwise not change a thing.

Yeah i killed both sides lol, there's three starting options : Corpo,Streetkid,Nomad. I did nomad this time. so far people have been spending close to 100 hours playing the game and still not discovered everything. I rushed through on my first 2 playthroughs,this time i'm taking my time and actually going for a 100 with the achievements.

I remember playing Modern Warfare 3,and i landed aa sticky grenade right on a guy's crotch lol. Then during a different match this happened.

Thats the most boring answer to that question I have ever heard...

I feel like everyone says that if they win the lottery they'd be sensible with it/not change much yet an absurd amount of people tend to go bankrupt soon after, guess actually having the money must change some reasoning up in the brain

i'd build my dream house,get a new car

EDIT: but then i'd need to spend/give it away in order to keep my disability stuff the drugs i need to stay alive would cut through the winnings like a hot knife thru butter.

My aunt and uncle won the lottery about 20 years ago. After taxes etc, it was about 2.5 million. They were dirt poor before that (She worked at Walmart and he hung Turkeys, which from what he told me, sounds like a horrible job)

Haven't really kept in touch, but they were very responsible the first 5-8 years, then I think they started overspending. Not sure how they are now, I think they still have enough not to work, but their spending habits changed drastically over the years.

Or the most interesting; and you just didn’t register it.