it seems kind of stupid to me that they would do that usually they will give people a warning to take down the video that violates there rules but I guess they decided to just give up on them.
I think that the arguments arising around Youtube, Facebook, etc. are interesting. Because, while they are private corporations with the ability to regulate their material how they please, they are also communication platforms. And being communication platforms, they have to conform to certain laws. They have to guarantee everyone a right to be seen and heard.
Personally, I would not want one, for it to run on detailed maps, and be able to override and read every factor of driving, it would require the internet. Assuming it is using google maps, what if it cannot connect to the internet? That's dangerous. To add, like ever machine, there is going to be an error, and this will probably raise accident rates.
. . . Google in general honestly kind of scares me. Like, yeah, the Chromes and Docs and stuff are beneficial for school things, but they don't have to try to take over the world. (And Payton brought up a good point with the car needing to be connected to the internet to work.) Also, has anyone heard about how Google asks you for your real name instead of allowing you to use a screen name (or something like that)? I remember, I think it was two days ago, that I was going to post a comment on a YouTube video that I had watched with my YouTube account that I've had since 2007, and then Google was all like, "Oh hey want to show your real name instead of your screen name?" and I was like, "Heck no." And there have been times where they purposely log me out of my Google account, and then when I sign back in, they ask for my cell phone number and I click skip because I'm not giving my number to Google. It's for some stupid information loss thing or whatever. But who knows if they're actually protecting your personal information and your privacy?
Hilarious metaphor, and seeing the reactions of the customers was priceless. Although it's quite disheartening that the majority did not know what Net Neutrality was.
I think that it is slightly weird that a food chain restaurant is commenting on net neutrality. I doesn't really seem like they should care either way about the ruling. I think they might just be trying to cash in on the recent controversy to make an ad that people will share and talk about.
I think fast food places doing net neutrality is really weird and frustrating for their customers. Having to wait a certain time until you get your food would be very frustrating as a customer. So that's saying that jimmy johns would not be freaky fast anymore if we had net neutrality, it would only be fast if you paid for the most expensive one???
I think that this was a perfect way to explain what net neutrality was and what it protected. I also think that the exaggeration of it made it even better.
"Ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to…
Football World Reacts To Michael Vick's Current 40 Time
One of the nation's largest states is taking on Big Tech.
Pause
Current Time 0:13
/
Duration 7:08
Loaded: 7.04%
Unmute
0
Fullscreen
VP Harris speaks out in support of Newsom as he faces recall election
Click to expand
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into law a bill that would prevent social media companies Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube from "deplatforming" politicians such as former President Donald Trump."
I disagree with the bill that prevents companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, from banning politicians. According to the bill, companies would have to notify people that their post will be removed/censored seven days before. I think that's too much time. The Capitol riot occurred within hours, not days. Also, it would also suggest that politicians are "special" and can get away with hateful posts for some time.
I don't think they understand the first amendment only covers government institutions. They always site freedom of speech for things like this but companies have no reason to hold up that standard, they can censor any content they want because they aren't government institutions.
I don't think this bill should be put in place. Like Jackie said, it makes it seem like politicians are special cases, and that they don't have to follow the online guidelines that we all follow.
I don't think that Flordia should be able to do this. They shouldn't be able to regulate what a privately own company does when a person using their product violates their rules.
I completely agree with this idea. Social media cannot stop the president/ politicians from spreading their ideas and opinions as they shouldn't be able to for anyone else. They should get treated the same and if anything is better for us as people to see what they post and get better/ easier insights on their personal views. We have the right to know our president's views and they have the right to express them. Especially since so many people are on social media it helps educate people better than just reading what the news say that they say.
I watched this and I really liked it. I give him credit for being a preacher and going against all other preachers by speaking on behalf of gay marriage.
Religion though, should not influence the policies of government upon gay marriage.
Just a side note, I laugh at images of people going to his protest, and raising a sign that says, "god hates signs," or "He's gay"
I agree also, religion should stay out of politics, the only reason people think being homosexual is wrong is because it says so in the bible. Gay couples who get married aren't hurting anyone or anything, I really think that this even being an issue is absurd.
I agree that one person can not represent an entire religion. One can represent their own easy because it is their personal belief on said subject. I give him props for being a willing person to speaking his views on gay marriage. The bible does not exactly say that it is not okay to be homosexual. It says its not okay to lay with someone of the same sex if I remember right. So I feel the physical part is viewed as not ok, wile the mental area should be taken in mind as well.
Every time someone "interprets" the bible it's like they are trying to "play God". They all try to say this is what God thinks and this is what He believes is wrong. I mean we should all be able to interpret it our own way and not try to make others believe in our interpretation, especially if it portrays God as "against" his own creations.
Religion is based off of your own personal faith and beliefs and with so many different versions and beliefs you can't let one person say what it means and stereotype that religion. You also have to consider the fact that things change with time, people evolve and so do thoughts. Like Snider showed in the video, we once thought that racism was right and accepting other nationalities was against their religion.
As I have said before, religion should have no influence when it comes to government policy. As for the bible, I could point out many things wrong with the bible, and the idea that Christianity not supporting gay relationships. I will not, simply out of the urge as to not ruin peoples views on religion. What I will say, is that the bible should also have no say on our government as well.
Religion should, and is, also limited in the US, contrary to popular belief. Religion has been limited to 1st, no human sacrifice. (We don't need them crazy beheading Aztec's coming in and just start slicing peoples heads off right?) Second, separation of church and state. That right there means religion is not allowed to say, "You can't be gay, ban gay marriage." (And oddly, it still managed to happen.)
I'm really looking forward to the supreme courts ruling on this, as long as they decide to take the case.
Group items tagged 
