|
|
Post by ironhold on Oct 14, 2018 16:29:43 GMT
millions of people, every day. That's right. If you can't make a public fool of yourself on Twitter, where can you make a fool of yourself? That is why I am dead against the government trying to regulate these social media sites. Our first amendment gives everyone the right to make a fool of themselves. Most of the talk I hear of regulation is people wanting various major social media platforms to actually *honor* their free-speech commitments in the wake of reports that employees at these platforms were so far biased against certain political views that they were basically just looking for excuses to censor. Right now the big issue is something called "The Good Censor", an internal Google corporate document someone leaked to the media. www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/09/the-good-censor-leaked-google-briefing-admits-abandonment-of-free-speech-for-safety-and-civility/(Yes, it's Breitbart, but it's mostly "alternative" news sources talking about it.) Basically, the document represents a rather high fellow at the company declaring that American-style free speech has to go if the platform is going to ensure "safety" and "civility" online and that they made the decision in the wake of seeing so many populist political candidates and political parties arise. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 14, 2018 17:00:01 GMT
That's right. If you can't make a public fool of yourself on Twitter, where can you make a fool of yourself? That is why I am dead against the government trying to regulate these social media sites. Our first amendment gives everyone the right to make a fool of themselves. Most of the talk I hear of regulation is people wanting various major social media platforms to actually *honor* their free-speech commitments in the wake of reports that employees at these platforms were so far biased against certain political views that they were basically just looking for excuses to censor. Right now the big issue is something called "The Good Censor", an internal Google corporate document someone leaked to the media. www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/09/the-good-censor-leaked-google-briefing-admits-abandonment-of-free-speech-for-safety-and-civility/(Yes, it's Breitbart, but it's mostly "alternative" news sources talking about it.) Basically, the document represents a rather high fellow at the company declaring that American-style free speech has to go if the platform is going to ensure "safety" and "civility" online and that they made the decision in the wake of seeing so many populist political candidates and political parties arise. Congress seems to think that social media sites should be censoring "outlandish" content such as a recent case of someone denying the Holocaust, while at the same time they call for regulation limiting the amount of censorship that these companies can apply. You can't have it both ways. Allowing ANY censorship for ANY reason goes against the First Admendment's right of freedom of speech. I realize that these are private companies, but it is also the only means many have to have their speech heard. If a private company, such as Twitter or Facebook is going to provide a public soapbox, then that soapbox must come free of any censorship. Let the fools speak and let the public decide. The public doesn't need some private company or Federal Government nanny deciding what is suitable for their ears. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2018 1:19:59 GMT
Most of the talk I hear of regulation is people wanting various major social media platforms to actually *honor* their free-speech commitments in the wake of reports that employees at these platforms were so far biased against certain political views that they were basically just looking for excuses to censor. Right now the big issue is something called "The Good Censor", an internal Google corporate document someone leaked to the media. www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/09/the-good-censor-leaked-google-briefing-admits-abandonment-of-free-speech-for-safety-and-civility/(Yes, it's Breitbart, but it's mostly "alternative" news sources talking about it.) Basically, the document represents a rather high fellow at the company declaring that American-style free speech has to go if the platform is going to ensure "safety" and "civility" online and that they made the decision in the wake of seeing so many populist political candidates and political parties arise. Congress seems to think that social media sites should be censoring "outlandish" content such as a recent case of someone denying the Holocaust, while at the same time they call for regulation limiting the amount of censorship that these companies can apply. You can't have it both ways. Allowing ANY censorship for ANY reason goes against the First Admendment's right of freedom of speech. I realize that these are private companies, but it is also the only means many have to have their speech heard. If a private company, such as Twitter or Facebook is going to provide a public soapbox, then that soapbox must come free of any censorship. Let the fools speak and let the public decide. The public doesn't need some private company or Federal Government nanny deciding what is suitable for their ears. the complaint most often heard at the moment is that a company may enforce their terms of service on people of one political persuasion, while ignoring exactly the same offenses committed by people of another political persuasion. I.E. some sites may censor and ban someone using the term "conservatard" while ignoring "libtard" or vice versa. but the bottom line is that a privately owned forum is a privately owned forum, and the owner has every right to censor speech, and the first amendment prohibits suppression of free speech, but it does not guarantee a venue. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 15, 2018 1:30:50 GMT
Congress seems to think that social media sites should be censoring "outlandish" content such as a recent case of someone denying the Holocaust, while at the same time they call for regulation limiting the amount of censorship that these companies can apply. You can't have it both ways. Allowing ANY censorship for ANY reason goes against the First Admendment's right of freedom of speech. I realize that these are private companies, but it is also the only means many have to have their speech heard. If a private company, such as Twitter or Facebook is going to provide a public soapbox, then that soapbox must come free of any censorship. Let the fools speak and let the public decide. The public doesn't need some private company or Federal Government nanny deciding what is suitable for their ears. the complaint most often heard at the moment is that a company may enforce their terms of service on people of one political persuasion, while ignoring exactly the same offenses committed by people of another political persuasion. I.E. some sites may censor and ban someone using the term "conservatard" while ignoring "libtard" or vice versa. but the bottom line is that a privately owned forum is a privately owned forum, and the owner has every right to censor speech, and the first amendment prohibits suppression of free speech, but it does not guarantee a venue. That’s fine on a closed board or forum such as this one. But a forum that is open to the public such as Twitter or Facebook, needs to adhere to the first amendment. If I own a theater, I can control what is said from the stage of that theater. However, that does not give me the right to control what is said on I the sidewalk in front of that theater. If the government wants to deem Facebook or Twitter a private, “closed“ forum, that’s fine. But then they have no right telling that company what they must allow or not allow. As I said, you can’t have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2018 2:34:34 GMT
the complaint most often heard at the moment is that a company may enforce their terms of service on people of one political persuasion, while ignoring exactly the same offenses committed by people of another political persuasion. I.E. some sites may censor and ban someone using the term "conservatard" while ignoring "libtard" or vice versa. but the bottom line is that a privately owned forum is a privately owned forum, and the owner has every right to censor speech, and the first amendment prohibits suppression of free speech, but it does not guarantee a venue. That’s fine on a closed board or forum such as this one. But a forum that is open to the public such as Twitter or Facebook, needs to adhere to the first amendment. If I own a theater, I can control what is said from the stage of that theater. However, that does not give me the right to control what is said on I the sidewalk in front of that theater. If the government wants to deem Facebook or Twitter a private, “closed“ forum, that’s fine. But then they have no right telling that company what they must allow or not allow. As I said, you can’t have it both ways. depends on whether it is a public sidewalk or the theatre owns the parking lot and sidewalk. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 15, 2018 4:18:01 GMT
That’s fine on a closed board or forum such as this one. But a forum that is open to the public such as Twitter or Facebook, needs to adhere to the first amendment. If I own a theater, I can control what is said from the stage of that theater. However, that does not give me the right to control what is said on I the sidewalk in front of that theater. If the government wants to deem Facebook or Twitter a private, “closed“ forum, that’s fine. But then they have no right telling that company what they must allow or not allow. As I said, you can’t have it both ways. depends on whether it is a public sidewalk or the theatre owns the parking lot and sidewalk. Even if the theater owns the sidewalk, I don't believe they can limit what someone wants to say while walking on it. Now they may be able to limit who walks on it, but not what they say while doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2018 4:44:05 GMT
depends on whether it is a public sidewalk or the theatre owns the parking lot and sidewalk. Even if the theater owns the sidewalk, I don't believe they can limit what someone wants to say while walking on it. Now they may be able to limit who walks on it, but not what they say while doing so. they can have people removed from their sidewalk - assuming it is not designated as public thoroughfare, like if it was on a street, instead of completely on their property |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 15, 2018 5:35:01 GMT
Even if the theater owns the sidewalk, I don't believe they can limit what someone wants to say while walking on it. Now they may be able to limit who walks on it, but not what they say while doing so. they can have people removed from their sidewalk - assuming it is not designated as public thoroughfare, like if it was on a street, instead of completely on their property Yes they could, but having someone removed for trespassing is not the same as stifling free speech. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 15, 2018 12:01:29 GMT
HOWEVER.
This does NOT cover everything and there ARE areas in which 'Free Speech' doesn't cover everything; Obscene language for example. And the FCC's regulations and classification systems are likewise not covered.
Companies ARE covered by the Free speech laws, as the Government can't demand or pass legislation to require them to speak about something that company doesn't agree with or is against their branding.
Which is where the problem lies.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc are companies and are perfectly free to censor what is put on their sites and if the US Government tries to pass any kind of regulations or laws regarding them they are by definition breaching the right to free speech.
More over if they try to do this on the basis that this is a 'public' forum and hence does fall under the limitations the Government can impose on Free speech. Well that means they would have to insist that such sites stop allowing the use of obscene language (good luck with that on the internet) and any videos confirm to FCC regulations. The latter is utterly unenforceable because A; The FCC has zero right to impose its regulations on videos made outside the US and B; Doing so would actually violate the First Amendment which ALSO covers people having a right to get information.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2018 14:08:02 GMT
they can have people removed from their sidewalk - assuming it is not designated as public thoroughfare, like if it was on a street, instead of completely on their property Yes they could, but having someone removed for trespassing is not the same as stifling free speech. really? removing a person from an internet site for what they are doing is different from removing a person from a physical place for what they are doing? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2018 14:15:51 GMT
HOWEVER. This does NOT cover everything and there ARE areas in which 'Free Speech' doesn't cover everything; Obscene language for example. And the FCC's regulations and classification systems are likewise not covered. Companies ARE covered by the Free speech laws, as the Government can't demand or pass legislation to require them to speak about something that company doesn't agree with or is against their branding. Which is where the problem lies. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc are companies and are perfectly free to censor what is put on their sites and if the US Government tries to pass any kind of regulations or laws regarding them they are by definition breaching the right to free speech. More over if they try to do this on the basis that this is a 'public' forum and hence does fall under the limitations the Government can impose on Free speech. Well that means they would have to insist that such sites stop allowing the use of obscene language (good luck with that on the internet) and any videos confirm to FCC regulations. The latter is utterly unenforceable because A; The FCC has zero right to impose its regulations on videos made outside the US and B; Doing so would actually violate the First Amendment which ALSO covers people having a right to get information. I'm sure the government imposing requirements on private websites would also severely bend some property rights. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 15, 2018 15:05:29 GMT
Yes they could, but having someone removed for trespassing is not the same as stifling free speech. really? removing a person from an internet site for what they are doing is different from removing a person from a physical place for what they are doing? Depends on what they are doing. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 15, 2018 15:10:27 GMT
HOWEVER. This does NOT cover everything and there ARE areas in which 'Free Speech' doesn't cover everything; Obscene language for example. And the FCC's regulations and classification systems are likewise not covered. Companies ARE covered by the Free speech laws, as the Government can't demand or pass legislation to require them to speak about something that company doesn't agree with or is against their branding. Which is where the problem lies. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc are companies and are perfectly free to censor what is put on their sites and if the US Government tries to pass any kind of regulations or laws regarding them they are by definition breaching the right to free speech. More over if they try to do this on the basis that this is a 'public' forum and hence does fall under the limitations the Government can impose on Free speech. Well that means they would have to insist that such sites stop allowing the use of obscene language (good luck with that on the internet) and any videos confirm to FCC regulations. The latter is utterly unenforceable because A; The FCC has zero right to impose its regulations on videos made outside the US and B; Doing so would actually violate the First Amendment which ALSO covers people having a right to get information. I'm sure the government imposing requirements on private websites would also severely bend some property rights. Congress seems to think that they can. Like most things of internet, a lot of this is uncharted territory. Eventually, the Supreme Court will have to sort it all out. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Oct 28, 2018 16:10:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 28, 2018 23:04:51 GMT
according to the article, that number is a single digit percentage. and the related headline says their stock jumped in value after they reported their quarterly earnings. so it sounds like they're not on the ropes quite yet. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 20, 2019 0:55:52 GMT
The 3.75-inch figures are starting to show up in Dollar Tree stores.
So far I'm seeing "Rogue One" and something from one of the animated ventures.
If I can ever get those photos off of my iPhone, I'll show everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 20, 2019 1:59:37 GMT
Disney's financial report issued a month or so back showed that toy sales were on the rise in all areas...Except Star Wars. In fact Star War's was the ONLY area of Disney to show a loss, one that they officially noted was 'offset by sales of other properties' (Read; Marvel toylines). However it looks as if the dive in Star Wars merchandise was so serious as to basically wipe out any profits from the others.
In probably related news, and something that would explain why Marvel has from the looks of things been spending a fortune making Captain Marvel look like a far better film than it was. Disney now officially owns Fox.
I say related because Disney, as big as they are, simply couldn't afford to buy out Fox with cold hard cash; Thanks to the mishandling of Star Wars they are still some $3 billion short of covering the cost of buying Lucasfilm; not including inflation but including the costs of the theme parks. As such Disney will have paid for most of this not with money (which is, interestingly, what the Fox shareholders were actually in favor of) but mostly in shares.
In this light Iger's decisions and apparent lack of strong action, meaning having Kennedy and Johnson drop kicked off the tallest building he can find, make more sense.
My guess is that Iger has taken a HUGE risk by pushing the narrative of 'toxic fan base' and 'Sexist white men', or allowing that to be done, in order to trick the Fox shareholders into thinking Disney is in a much better position than it really is. Now he doesn't have to worry as much about a dip in shareprice affecting that deal.
What is going to be interesting is what happens next. I don't expect Kennedy to get kicked until after episode IX - although I would only be mildly surprised if she announced she would be retiring at the end of this year at Star Wars Celebration which she will be attending. I'm also wondering if Disney might start taking a gradual walk back from the 'toxic fan' narrative. Hopefully realizing that this potentially devastating for their Marvel brand in the long run.
This in turn might also explain the rumors about recasting Larson or dropping Captain Marvel, as well as their being two end cuts for Endgame. I'm wondering if the higher ups at Disney started to have concerns about Larson being the new face of the MCU fairly early during filming Captain Marvel. They couldn't cancel or recast at that point, nor could they push the film back any further. But it would make sense for them to cover their bases by leaving the door open to being able to recast. That, as has been pointed out, would actually be fairly easy now they have the X-Men. They have an X-Men vs The Avengers film in the works (as in planned out, not technically in production) and a great way to set that up would be for Rogue to steal Captain Marvels powers and Captain Marvel 2 to be with the actual first Captain Marvel who was to some degree set up in the first film.
Carol Danver's could then be set up as a replacement for Nick Fury. Allowing them to honor their contract with Lawson while giving her as little screen time as possible. (Note; This would actually fit with the rumored 9 film deal).
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 20, 2019 6:08:41 GMT
One quick way for Disney to make at least some cash would be for them to call up Hasbro and sell off what remains of the Saban properties.
When Hasbro got Saban from Fox back around 2002, they got the rights to *all* Saban-produced series... including a season of "Transformers". Disney would have been smart to monetize the snot out of that back when the 2007 live-action "Transformers" movie was a hit, but instead it only saw DVD releases in two countries (UK and Australia) and TV broadcast in one (the UK, via Jetix). But Hasbro got tired of trying to negotiate, and named a 2015 series "Robots In Disguise" to retaliate against Disney by making it impossible for them to release the cartoon on their own now without a legal battle against one of their major license-holders.
In addition to this season of "Transformers", Disney's also sitting on the English dubs to such anime as "Daigunder", "Shinzo", "Mon Colle Knights", and "Tokyo Pig". "Mon Colle Knights" still has an international cult fandom going for it, so a release of that could make someone some money. But "Tokyo Pig" hasn't been seen on US TV since it ended its run circa 2002, and the others dropped out of sight a decade ago after a run on the US version of Jetix... with MCN's run infamously having the episodes out of order.
It's unlikely that Hasbro would offer very much given everything that's been going on, but it'd be liquid cash *and* Hasbro would have secured the rights to all English-language installments of the "Transformers" franchise. I'll have to check who has the original rights to the original Japanese versions of the other shows, but Hasbro's long-time partner Takara-Tomy owns controlling stake in legendary animation studio Tatsunoko Pro, so if any of them are T-P properties it's pretty much a foregone conclusion.* Hasbro'd then hand the footage over to their pals at Shout! Factory, who would be tasked with cleaning up the audio and video ahead of new DVD releases. There's a bit of a controversy in the anime dubbing industry that might make it hard to get some special features going for these releases, but they'd still sell simply due to pent-up demand.
But yeah - merchandise sales for Star Wars are down significantly, and Disney doesn't have the liquid assets to absorb that hit forever. And since Hasbro is the company who produces much of it, it's a question as to who'll blink first.
* Of note, however, is that just because something is owned by Tatsunoko Pro doesn't mean Hasbro can do anything with it. For example, the "Mach Go Go" franchise, what we know as "Speed Racer", is not readily available to Hasbro at this point because all things "Speed Racer" are owned by Speed Racer Enterprises. So while Takara could churn out all the "Mach Go Go" merchandise they want, Hasbro would have to get with SRE to see what licenses aren't already owned by others.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 20, 2019 14:38:34 GMT
or, you know, they could go back to making movies, and selling toys, and stop letting people who can't stand the idea that a girl can be a hero distract them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 20, 2019 15:06:34 GMT
Simply put Hasbro isn't going to offer much money for such rights; It would be a very minor market in which to sell such properties and just not worth it.
So even if Disney did sell them back to Hasbro it would be for pocket change; most likely less than the production cost of the average Marvel or Star Wars film.
Worse for Disney however is the point about Hasbro I've made before; Hasbro seems to be positioning themselves to be able to drop their Disney rights if they have to. The awful truth for Disney is that Hasbro doesn't need Disney as much as Disney needs Hasbro. And even a best case scenario is unlikely to involve Hasbro paying anything close to what they have been for the rights.
The worse case is that Hasbro walks away and Disney is left looking around for another company that can make action figures on the scale they need. The next biggest company would be Mattel...who are some $5 billion in the red as it is and therefore simply couldn't offer the same deal. Even if they were willing to do so that would result in Disney risking their toy lines on a company that could very easily end up going out of business and leave those rights ready to be picked up randomly by other companies. Disney itself might not be in a position where they could afford to buy the rights back at the time, leaving the various toy rights scattered between various companies.
Disney potentially has a major problem on its hands, in that they have spent far too much and made far too little financially. While managing to burn bridges with customers and I'm guessing even the media at this point. Disney needs successful films not just in the short term but in the long term. They are currently very heavily dependent on Marvel to maintain the appearance of strength and power. But should that erode to any degree they could be in serious trouble as their hold over the media is going to fall and problems be more readily reported.
It's not going to take much for the Mouse to be crippled for a decade or more. If the streaming service under-performs, the Marvel films start not to make as much money or tank or people simply don't go to their theme parks in enough numbers. Well, its likely to be 10 years or more for them to cover all the costs they have accumulated in the last few years. Until then they simply won't have the funds to expand further.
|
|
