That is literally the law of the land. Read into castle doctrine and duty to retreat. Business owners have the legal right to defend their life on their property with deadly force if left no choice (i.e. a mob has surrounded you)
At any rate his tweet was ambiguous, he could have meant shooting naturally follows looting, not that he was ordering the guard to execute civilians.
If you think Trump suddenly decided he wanted to make a big deal of this and hasn't been working with Barr and GOP to draft legislation from day one (of Barr's tenure) you've not been paying attention.
You can continue to believe Trump is unpredictable when almost everything he does is signaled far in advance.
They have survived so far paying SV salaries. The non-engineering positions are practically disposable but they make up a considerable amount of bloat at many companies. Now would be an ideal time to trim the fat.
I would hope the tanks roll in if they try to burn the city down. The politicians in SF/CA have made every attempt to disarm the public. What happens when the SFPD abandon their post and looters are going house to house?
And it's not so much a refusal to deal with politics as much as we are already dealing with it everywhere else. It's nice to have a refuge. Although I find it strange that thread was pruned as Section 230 is definitely related to tech.
It's clear Jack doesn't want to kowtow or maybe his ego is bruised but I just don't understand what he expects to come of this. The President has stacked the courts in his favor. He will get his way and twitter will take a massive hit financially.
My best guess is that Jack plans to move the company headquarters out of the US which would explain why he chose to allow remote work indefinitely. But can he get it past shareholders? The President had also stated he doesn't want foreign companies on the NYSE and no other market offers similar liquidity.
Twitter has some automated method of determining whether a tweet is NSFW and it is very accurate to the point where I didn't even realize they allowed that content. They can figure out how to filter illegal content as well.
How often are people bootstrapping a social media site? That's not something you rollout with a tight budget. Most websites do not allow user-generated content. This won't have nearly as big of an effect on the sector as you think.
Whether they are paying people or writing automated systems to remove content they disagree with, these companies argued for this legal protection on the grounds of protecting free-speech, and now that they want to restrict it they don't deserve those same protections.
Sounds like you're referring to DMCA where as I was referring to heinous crimes like drug/sex/child trafficking. They do have protection right now in either case.
If companies want to allow user generated content they should be liable for moderating it. The legal protections that these companies have thrived on should be repealed. They don't seem to have trouble removing content they disagree with so illegal content shouldn't be any more difficult.
If companies are going to self-moderate their platforms then they should not receive any kind of legal protection from user-generated content. I wholly believe companies have every right to dictate what is on their platform but they cannot have it both ways. If you can afford to moderate content you disagree with, you can do so for illegal content as well.
If I own a store and someone injures themselves on the premises I am held liable for that. I did not force that person to enter the store but the benefits of having a store outweighed the risks. Why should internet companies receive special treatment? They should be 100% liable for what happens on their "premises" if they are going to take the risk of allowing user-generated content.
Why does facebook need to do anything about this? People have been disagreeing with each other violently or otherwise for as long as humans have existed. Do they think they can do anything about this?
If all you're doing is creating an MVP do whatever is easiest. But yes ideally you would have two separate codebases and obviously it's dependent on your project how much tools can be shared between the projects.
It sounds like you didn't read my post. My complaint was that its lazy developing to just take your web app and put it on the desktop. I was not commenting on the merits of this tool.
Please, no. Your application belongs on the web. I can already tell when applications are written with middleware, cross-platform tools, electron, etc. because they always run like trash. They offer no benefit over a website and only open up your machine to new attack vectors. I know I'll catch flack for this, but we shouldn't lower the bar to entry here. Native app development is not significantly more difficult than web and it's drastically better for the end user.
That is literally the law of the land. Read into castle doctrine and duty to retreat. Business owners have the legal right to defend their life on their property with deadly force if left no choice (i.e. a mob has surrounded you)
At any rate his tweet was ambiguous, he could have meant shooting naturally follows looting, not that he was ordering the guard to execute civilians.