Thought for the Day

[trish]

I think Trump IS his empire. It is his identity. He cannot separate himself from it, literally and psychologically. He has nothing else. It fills the black hole that is Donald Trump. I would be very surprised, for example, would he ever agree to any arrangement that amounts to a real blind trust. He can't do it. How can one separate one from oneself? His whole presidency will be about expanding Donald Trump. His self-praise will ring world.

So much ringing. He's the best world-ringer. My advice: Avoid tinnitus, buy earplugs.

[blackchubby38]

Here is another thought for the day.

3 of the families of the victims in the Pulse night club terrorist attack/mass shooting are suing Google, FaceBook, and Twitter claiming all 3 companies are responsible for the spread of ISIS. That ISIS uses all three social media sites to spread their propaganda, recruit, and radicalize impressionable young Muslim men into committing terrorist attacks.

While I sympathize with all of the victims of that and other terrorist attacks, I don't think those three companies should be held responsible because their innovation is being used to commit heinous actions. Now I do think all three should have parameters in place to make sure that doesn't happen. But I think we are entering into dangerous territory when start you holding businesses accountable for the actions of some of their users of their product.

[filghy2]

Why don't they sue the manufacturers of the guns that were used? That seems much more directly related to the crime. Or has that been tried already?

[Stavros]

Why don't they sue the manufacturers of the guns that were used? That seems much more directly related to the crime. Or has that been tried already?

Has been tried in a feature film here-
Runaway Jury
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0313542/

[broncofan]

In the Orlando shooting case, it will be very difficult to prove causation. Namely that but for the actions of those networks, the shooter would not have gone on a rampage. I think the plaintiffs, who I obviously sympathize with, should lose in that case.

But I do think causes of action should be upheld against networks that allow people to coordinate criminal acts. Doing so is just good public policy if the claim requires proof of negligence rather than strict liability. I don't think a search engine should be liable for the searches it returns. It is not promoting anything, it is not hosting anything, and only exists to narrow down vast amounts of information so that users can find what they're looking for. Sometimes people look for things they shouldn't.

But social networks like twitter and facebook have an obligation to make sure there aren't networks of people using their platform as a way to coordinate terrorist acts. If you host something, whether in person or digitally, you have some obligation to have procedures in place to ensure it is not used to plan crimes. Just my opinion.

[broncofan]

I think the plaintiffs, who I obviously sympathize with, should lose in that case.
.

Actually they'll probably lose because there's a federal law that provides immunity for websites for what third parties post. Article says it has been used to effectively block similar suits. And the suit against google is for youtube content and not for its searches.

[blackchubby38]

Actually they'll probably lose because there's a federal law that provides immunity for websites for what third parties post. Article says it has been used to effectively block similar suits. And the suit against google is for youtube content and not for its searches.

Thanks for clarifying why Google was named in the suit. I couldn't figure out ISIS was using them to spread their message and recruit followers

[sukumvit boy]

In what I think is a smart diplomatic move , that murderer and sociopath , Putin attempts to turn the tables on Obama and attain the moral high ground in response to Obama's sanctions .
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...-u-s-sanctions

Additionally , hats off to Obama for his refusal to acquiesce to Israel's Palestinian resettlement policies.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/28/...ents-un-kerry/

[fred41]

I'm sorry Sukumvit, but I mostly agree with Krauthammer on this one:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/o...icle-1.2928147

[broncofan]

My view is in between the two. Obama wanted to send the message that our diplomatic support depends upon the Israelis doing things that will lead to a negotiated peace rather than hinder it. Krauthammer is right that the creation of the Palestinian state should come with strings attached; namely that the leadership accepts the notion of two states and will not continue the fight Hamas lays out in their charter and a great many Palestinians support. On the other hand, how does continued expansion in the West Bank do anything but thwart an eventual agreement?

I do think the UN has shown bias regarding the significance of certain sites to Jewish people (note: acknowledging the significance of the Temple Mount to Jews would not necessarily be binding on any negotiated settlement). UNESCO, according to an article I read, backed a motion nullifying the connection of Jewish people to the Temple Mount. They did not say the same thing about the Al Aqsa Mosque which is the third holiest site in Islam but were happy to say as much about the holiest site in Judaism.

Even if Krauthammer is right that settlements don't pose a permanent obstacle to peace because they can be dismantled, doesn't it send a very bad message to Palestinians who are concerned about being displaced in land that would comprise their state after a settlement? I don't think the UN has always been impartial, but I agree with Obama here. Israel is a recipient of a large amount of foreign aid, which traditionally has meant that a country has to at least advance our interests in exchange.