Reason Roundup

San Francisco Judge Rules Drivers With Ride-Sharing Companies Are Employees. Uber Warns It'll Have To Raise Prices By as Much as 111 Percent.

Plus: Federal government spent $250 billion on expanded unemployment benefits, Joe Biden's V.P. pick is "imminent," and Ben Shapiro takes on Cardi B

|

A San Francisco judge ruled Monday that Uber and Lyft must classify their drivers as employees, a momentous decision that potentially puts companies on the hook for providing extensive benefits to these workers, including overtime pay and health insurance.

The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed back in May by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. He, alongside the city attorneys from Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco, argued that the companies were misclassifying their drivers as independent contractors under the state's recently passed Assembly Bill (A.B.) 5.

That law, which went into effect in January, set out three requirements that a worker would have to meet in order to be considered an independent contractor. This "ABC" test requires that a contractor be a) free from the control of the entity hiring them, b) be performing work outside the scope of the entity hiring them, and c) be "customarily engaged" in the kind of work they are being hired to perform.

Uber and Lyft have argued that their drivers can be considered contractors under this ABC test because they are technology companies connecting riders to drivers, not transportation companies hiring drivers to perform rides.

It was an argument that San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman flatly rejected.

"Defendants' insistence that their businesses are 'multi-sided platforms' rather than transportation companies is flatly inconsistent with the statutory provisions that govern their businesses as transportation network companies," wrote Schulman. "It also flies in the face of economic reality and common sense."

The ruling has provoked a backlash from Lyft and Uber, who argue that the vast majority of their drivers prefer the flexibility that comes with being independent contractors, and that having to classify drivers as employees will dramatically increase the cost of rides.

"Drivers do not want to be employees, full stop. We'll immediately appeal this ruling and continue to fight for their independence. Ultimately, we believe this issue will be decided by California voters and that they will side with drivers," said a Lyft spokesperson to Business Insider.

Should drivers be classified as employees, "Uber would only have full-time jobs for a small fraction of our current drivers and only be able to operate in many fewer cities than today," wrote Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi in a Monday op-ed for The New York Times. "Rides would be more expensive, which would significantly reduce the number of rides people could take and, in turn, the number of drivers needed to provide those trips."

An analysis by Uber economist Alison Stein estimated that prices for rides would have to rise between 25 to 111 percent across California to cover the costs of providing employee benefits to all drivers on the platform, with the highest price spikes coming in less dense areas of the state.

A.B. 5 has caused no shortage of disruption and pain for many freelancers who've lost work or been forced into less flexible working arrangements because of their newfound classification as employees.

In addition to appealing the ruling, Uber, Lyft, and delivery app businesses like DoorDash and Instacart are fighting to pass Prop. 22, which would classify app-based transportation and delivery drivers as independent contractors. That measure will go before voters in November.


FREE MARKETS

An analysis conducted by the Wall Street Journal found that the federal government spent $250 billion on its $600 weekly unemployment bonuses which were sent from April through the end of July. That bonus was initially passed as part of the $2.3 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

Those benefits expired at the end of last month. President Donald Trump has proposed extending them, creating a new program via an executive memorandum, paid for by $44 billion in existing disaster relief funds, that would provide unemployed workers with a $400 weekly bonus until the end of December. (States would be responsible for pitching in $100 of the weekly $400.)

California received $38.4 billion in benefits, the most of any state, and Michigan received the most when adjusting for the size of its labor force, reports the Journal.

Given the massive shrinkage in the number of jobs available during the first months of the pandemic, most economists don't think that the $600 bonus kept many people from returning to work. The American Enterprise Institute's Michael Strain has argued that extending that bonus would act as a drag on recovery, as the economy slowly (hopefully) returns to normal.


ELECTION 2020

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is reportedly on the cusp of choosing his running mate. The New York Times reported yesterday that Biden had interviewed all of the final candidates, and is now in the final process of picking a running mate.

Biden has already committed to picking a female vice president, but who it'll be beyond that remains to be seen. Reports the Times:

Some of the strongest contenders have been Senator Kamala Harris of California; Susan Rice, the former national security adviser; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts; and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, who met with Mr. Biden on Aug. 2. Mr. Biden and his team have also closely considered Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico and Representatives Karen Bass of California and Val Demings of Florida.


QUICK HITS  

  • Ben Shapiro is not impressed with the new, sexually explicit single from Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion.
  • New York City police officers stood idly by as an 11-year-old was beaten in broad daylight, reports the New York Post. 
  • A new study from Apartment List finds that "32 percent of renters (and homeowners) entered August with unpaid bills. Over 20 percent owe more than $1,000." They also report that 49 percent of those tenants with rent debt had negotiated or were in the process of negotiating a payment plan.
  • Tenant activists, meanwhile, are taking to the streets to argue for greater protections against evictions, reports Vice. 
  • Rents in Los Angeles are falling during the pandemic. It's the same story in San Francisco and New York City.
  • The federal government's dietary guidelines are expected to be released this December. They're likely to include advice that men do more to curtail their alcohol intake. Good luck.
  • A new study finds that surgical masks and fitted N95 respirators are best at protecting the wearer from COVID-19. Fleece gaiters are worse than nothing, according to the study.

Advertisement

NEXT: A Judge Condemns Excessive Requests to Seal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ben Shapiro is not impressed with the new, sexually explicit single from Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion.

    He’s a hard sell.

    1. He prefers Back That Azz Up by Juvenile.

      1. dmx. ride or die.

        1. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Skills Required.GBf Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…………► Cash Mony System

        2. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.JTY I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is

          what I do…… Money90

    2. I know I go to ben Shapiro all the time for my urban top 40 Playlist.

      1. Ben Shapiro is the Snoop Dog of orthodox Jews.

        1. Oy vey

          -Matisyahu

          1. I stand corrected. Forgot about him.

            1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…MGf after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

              Here’s what I do………► Cash Mony System

        2. Or is he the Orthodox Jew of Snoop Doggs?

    3. There’s certainly a lot of thot behind it.

      1. Clap, clap, clap (those cheeks).

    4. Hello.

      California. Lol.

      Beyond parody.

      1. Maybe we should import Coolies to carry the self-entitled who believe that only they should have benefits around in palanquins?

        If someone’s business model requires the modern equivalent of serfdom, they need to be out of business so that Capitalists don’t have to compete with slave traders being subsidized by the continues leaching off what’s left of the shared prosperity we created until economic terrorists who hate us for the freedoms that strong unions, proper taxes on the Conservative Donor/Parasite class, and proper financial regulations gave us, used the economic turmoil created by the oil embargo to launch their jihad against shared prosperity and the middle class.

        1. Um, fuck off slaver.

        2. Donor/Parasite

          ?

    5. To be honest, I can’t figure out why this is a link or story.

      1. Someone isn’t liking something someone else does, they must be stopped.

        1. Not just that, it absolutely hits all the SJW beats: conservative white male disapproves of minority female behaving sexually for money.

          Like we didn’t go through this exact same thing with Madonna, Rihanna, Beyonce, etc., etc.

          1. Which is funny cause a lot of sjw’s have a problem with it because of the recent conversations about over sexualizing black women by white culture.

          2. Madonna is a minority?

            1. Madonna is a minority?

              How many Madonnas would it take to constitute a minority?

      2. White Knight will be along to explain shortly

        1. ENB covers the beat of feminism and female sexuality in politics and culture, and she probably thought it was kind of humorous, too.

          There. Done.

          1. Read the byline and try again.

            1. OK, why don’t you explain it. I don’t even care about the story.

              1. I’ll go with a lot of older libertarians are still in Trauma from the Moral Majority during the 1980’s, thus any conservative criticizing any explicit music triggers PTSD.

      3. The decision has been made from up on high that Reason isn’t allowed to call riots by their rightful name or point out how widespread they are or how much damage they’re actually doing (or how many people are being hospitalized, killed…..). You have to get creative to fill these links. Now tell me what Brian Williams thinks about they lyrics! He doesn’t want to quote them on his show either? Weird.

    6. ●▬▬▬▬PART TcIME JOBS▬▬▬▬▬●
       
      I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……
      ↓↓↓↓COPY THIS SITE↓↓↓↓

      HERE► Real Cash Mony System

  2. New York City police officers stood idly by as an 11-year-old was beaten in broad daylight…

    The public has made it quite clear that they’re not allowed to join in.

    1. This is sadly true. If the cops report of a crowd stopping them from intervening is true (notice I said IF) than the headline should be cops stopped from intervening as a girl was beaten by a gang of girls. I find some reason to believe this is true, especially after cops in Seattle were stopped by crowds in other cities from intervening in serious crimes by unruly crowds (Seattle I am looking at you).

        1. Yes, there is a video. Although, from my understanding the video doesn’t show the girl being assaulted. I think there is reason to suspect the police story is accurate and reason to question the reporters narrative (I didn’t see any bottles being thrown). The bottles may have been thrown before he arrived (sorry assuming sex, bad me) or the reporter was in an area where they couldn’t see any projectiles being thrown. Or the reporter may be lying. Shrugs shoulders.

          1. I’ll go with door number 3, Monty.

            1. Or option four, both are lying, e.g. one bottle was thrown, the reporter lied about it and the cops overrepresented the danger.

          2. Allegedly, the cops pulled back and re-positioned and called for reinforcements because they were outnumbered. The Post reporter arrived 45 minutes after the call. So he didn’t see it. The assault could be taking place behind the camera, or around the corner.

            1. I am fully allowing this possibilty. Or that both perceived things differently. The video evidence is stronger than eyewitness, as eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

              1. Video is often recorded after the part you need to see to make a good judgement, and does not show all angles.

                Not saying is impossible for the cops to publicly release a video for the purpose of misinformation. But that can backfire big time if ever proven.

                1. And the video in this case is dash cam, which is supposedly on at all times. As for faking it, it has occurred but probably is the exception rather than the rule.

                  1. The video I am referring to in the link is not a dash cam. Maybe one of those NYPD cameras they have on a poll.

      1. “especially after cops in Seattle were stopped by crowds in other cities from intervening in serious crimes by unruly crowds”

        Something is wrong with this. How could crowds in Minneapolis (an other city) Stop Seattle PD from doing anything in Seattle?

        1. The long arm of the crowd.

      2. Nowhere did I say anything about Minneapolis. Where did you get that take? I see. I typed two different thoughts into one sentence, to clarify I meant crowds in multiple cities have stopped cops from responding and meant to specifically reference when Seattle police were stopped from entering CHAZ/CHOP after shootings to investigate. I meant to reference a specific event as an example.

        1. “especially after cops in Seattle were stopped by crowds in other cities from intervening in serious crimes by unruly crowds (Seattle I am looking at you).”

          Other cities in this sentence implies that Seattle PD were stopped by crowds that were in a city that is NOT Seattle. Minneapolis is an example of a city that is NOT Seattle.

          1. I know that is why I stated I see in the third sentence, and then admitted the sentence was confusing because I didn’t edit it correctly (at all) and had two confusing themes in the same sentence. I should have said after cops in other cities, such as Seattle…

      3. This is sadly true.

        Yeah, I see a Black Lives Matter t-shirt. Would the cops be intervening in a felony assault or baited into breaking up a performative act in the midst of a peaceful protest? Do they draw straws as to which one gets to risk his career by arresting a woman wearing a BLM t-shirt? As long as they aren’t a danger to the neighborhood at large, why bother?

  3. …prices for rides would have to rise between 25 to 111 percent across California to cover the costs of providing employee benefits to all drivers on the platform, with the highest price spikes coming in less dense areas of the state.

    If you wanted consumer choice maybe you should have lived in an area that matters. And also has cabs.

    1. I still don’t understand the difference between Uber/Lyft and traditional taxi drivers, as far as employment law. How is it the ridesharing guys are clearly “employees”, while a guy paying a lease fee for a taxi for a night from a big company still be a contractor?

      This can backfire on the taxi cartels.

      1. Good point.

  4. https://twitter.com/PartymanRandy/status/1293177905200144384

    I wonder how the media would respond if a regular at Child Rape Island was given a prime time speaking slot at the GOP convention.

    1. Klobuchar? I always had my suspicions.

    2. I’m fairly certain Trump will be speaking at the GOP convention

      1. Unrelated.

  5. Tenant activists, meanwhile, are taking to the streets to argue for greater protections against evictions…

    You fools! The street is exactly where the landlords want you.

    1. And your stuff, too.

  6. https://twitter.com/AP/status/1293132599049756672

    Unlike every other state with major nursing home outbreaks, New York only counts resident deaths that occur in the home, not in hospitals. That could make New York’s official toll, already among the nation’s highest, a significant undercount.

    1. https://twitter.com/PhilipWegmann/status/1293136696628973569

      President of the California Association of Long Term Care Medicine, “said it is unethical of New York to not break out the deaths of nursing home residents at hospitals. ‘From an epidemiological and scientific perspective, there is absolutely no reason not to count them.’”

      1. But from a political perspective – – – –
        (which is all that counts)

        1. Go on…

    2. Whatever. Nothing will change the fact that Cuomo has performed better than any other governor during this pandemic.

      #LibertariansForCuomo
      #MakeHimSurgeonGeneralInTheBidenAdministration

      1. The operative word being “performed”.

      2. Theater, not governance.

        1. Well, NY is the home of the Great White Way. Wait, can we still say that?

      3. Performed better in total number of deaths. WINNING

        1. California now leading in total cases, after unearthing 300,000 overlooked records. After governor Karen Tiresome was lauded for acting early and wisely.

    3. “”New York only counts resident deaths that occur in the home, not in hospitals. “”

      I voiced my suspicion with this on another tread months ago. I also joking said that if the nursing home moved the patient to the sidewalk it would not count as a nursing home death.

      1. You can game the metrics multiple ways.
        Remember when the NHS kept patients in ambulances instead of admitting them so they could say everyone was treated withing 4 hours of admittance? (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/feb/17/health.nhs1)
        Or when they treated lesser ailments first so they could meet wait time targets?(https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-62671/NHS-waiting-list-scandal-revealed.html)
        [Sorry for text instead of links. Reason and its one link maximum.]

      2. My other comment went to moderation hell (for including URLs).
        The NHS had a couple of scandals related to gaming statistics. They were caught treating lesser ailments first if they had been waiting long so they could meet wait time targets. They also held patients in ambulances so they could say they treated everyone within 4 hours of admittance.

  7. They’re likely to include advice that men do more to curtail their alcohol intake.

    Shouldn’t have legalized walktails then.

    1. More accurate headline “Government releases new, ambiguous dietary guidelines” sub headline “guidelines likely based on correlative studies and lobbying”. This would accurately describes Government dietary guidelines from their inception. Despite copious amounts of study that show dietary cholesterol has very little impact on serum cholesterol, and the highly dubious claim that elevated cholesterol levels are linked to heart disease, and studies showing heart disease and high blood pressure are rarely impacted by dietary salt intake (unless the person also has kidney problems) and that in fact lower salt intake has been linked to poorer outcomes, these dietary guidelines remain. The initial recommendations were made with very little scientific evidence (the salt recommendations had only one very small study that the authors even testified were inconclusive) because the law is poorly written the government was forced to make recommendations despite lack of evidence. This is also true of the peanut allergy recommendations that we now know made things worse. Government “dietary science” is about worthless because it is often forced to go on incomplete data and once implemented are nearly impossible to change. My plate, the food pyramid etc have all proven to be worse than nothing at all. Additionally, human nutritional research suffers from a variety of built in shortcomings. The studies are usually short term, or based on self reporting, are correlative, rarely have control groups and since it is unethical to do kill studies and other more definitive research, is much less reliable than animal nutrition studies. Animal models are also incomplete, because despite the mammalian digestive systems being fairly conservative, the still differ enough in function that animal studies may actually prove worse than nothing at all. As a ruminant nutritionist, I can, if it passes the ethics board of the Animal Care and Use Committees, do studies that involve fistulated/cannulated cattle and even kill studies. I can test using restrictive dieting and closely monitor feed intake. This allows a better understanding of metabolic pathways. Even calorie counts in human are pretty much meaningless as they are based on bomb calimetery results. This process is to place a food item into an oven and burn it all up. This returns inaccurate results as cellulose and starch have the same energy gram for gram (both are giant chains of glucose molecules that just differ by molecular bonding). Cellulose (fiber) is indigestible, whole starch is almost fully digestible by mammals. Furthermore, food labels are based upon questionable serving sizes and questionable dietary needs.

      1. Given the way “experts” have performed lately, there is a good chance that many dgaf about these new recommendations.

      2. Government knows best.
        Now drink um don’t drink I mean drink your milk.

      3. The ‘return’ key is your friend, Soldier.

        1. Your knowledge on this and other subjects is valuable here. It’s just that your posts aren’t as easy to read as they could be, when they’re one big block of text.

          1. I second this sentiment. 🙂

      4. A common experimental model of human atherosclerosis was/is to feed mice a butter-and-egg diet. What that shows is that a species which is adapted to a grain diet or other kind of diet will develop atherosclerosis if you give them a high cholesterol diet. Scientists liked that because it gave them a way to produce atherosclerosis as a baseline in animals and then try various interventions. However, it was wrong to extrapolate the model to humans as to the causation of atherosclerosis.

    2. Face it. Men should simply be more like post-menopausal nanny women.

  8. The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed back in May by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. He, alongside the city attorneys from Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco

    Vote them out. Every. One.

    Voters aren’t going to react well to government officials eliminating popular services like Uber and Lyft. No matter where their liberal “principles” are on this issue, most people will ultimately come out against laws and elected officials that impact their lives.

    It’s a lesson that Republicans at the federal level should learn as well with respect to section 230. No matter where you are on that issue you have to realize that potentially changing the business model for popular platforms like Twitter and Facebook won’t sit well with centrist voters.

    1. Californians are one past the point where they should’ve violently revolted or seceded.
      They lie in a bed of their own (…and China’s) making

      1. Maybe. I’ve long thought that the overarching principle (if you can call it that) behind liberal ideology is that it’s fine for government to encroach on other’s lives for some idea of a greater good, but not on my life. It’s seen in things like NIMBY, soak the rich, etc.

        The liberal “principle” of supporting the public transportation unions won’t outweigh the average Californian’s desire for ridesharing at today’s convenience and price. At least that’s my theory.

        1. And even tax the rich tend to only target certain groups of the rich, while leaving gaping loopholes that rich liberals could drive a semi through.

          1. Yes, generally those not politically connected enough to get a loophole

            1. Or politically taboo.

            2. If not an explicit loophole, they have the means to take advantage of the rules. Most domicile in another state and keep track of their time in state so they only have to pay taxes on their in-state income.

        2. Unless some progressive politician takes it to the next level, and promises both mandatory benefits for drivers, and free rides for “regular” people.

          1. Seems more likely that they would shift the blame for their own unintended consequences onto Lyft and Uber as evil greedy corporations. That tactic may work in California.

            1. And then implement Earth Skeptic’s scenario. Same as the do with health care.

        3. The “overarching principle behind liberal ideology” (no, I wouldn’t call it that), is guilt and grievance. You find a sympathetic “marginalized” group that are negatively impacted by this, and it’s gone.

          Unless it’s the drivers. They’ll be told it’s for their own good.

    2. How dare we threaten ompanies with contract laws. So much better to allow them to arbitrarily change terms at their whim. (Regards to 230 comment)

      1. Sue for breach of contract then… nothing stopping you. The content ownership protection doesn’t affect contract law. It’s about platforms not being responsible for “illegal speech” like libel, inciting violence, etc.

        But you don’t even care about that. Going after 230 is a cudgel to get your way (forced platforming of conservative thought). Either way it’s a political loser with moderate voters, which was my point.

        1. Unfortunately, many judges have interpreted section 230 to mean that even breach of contract is not actionable. Maybe a slight rewording, to make it clear that breach of contract is actionable and that terms of service changes should be adjudicated based upon a mutual agreement by both parties, e.g. if I don’t accept the new terms of services than all cases should be decided upon the last terms of service I agreed to. Of course, the technology company must also have the ability to cut off service to those who don’t agree to new terms of service.

        2. Sue for breach of contract then… nothing stopping you

          Tell Meagan Murphy that when she did sue for breach of contract only to have it dismissed on 230 grounds.

          Do you even follow the actual arguments?

          Patreon is the first time a contract change was finally upheld by a Silicon Valley judge. All of these companies have clauses in their ToS to arbitrate in SV, which is a huge boon to people. When Murphy did (Twitter changed ToS then faulted her for a comment prior to the ToS change), it was dismissed under 230.

          1. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190618/08315742419/self-described-feminist-loses-lawsuit-against-twitter-banning-her-account.shtml

            “Not included in this recitation of redresses is the fact that Twitter reserves the right to remove accounts for ‘any or no reason,’ which may be bullshit, but it’s bullshit Murphy agreed to when she created her now-banned account.“

            It’s their website, she was using free of charge.

            1. A contract is a contract. Libertarians generally agree that contractual agreements should be honored by both parties, and one shouldn’t be held accountable for past misconduct that was permissible under a previous agreement, then arbitrarily changed. Yes, it’s their business, but economic activity is a two way street. Punishing, retroactively, for conduct you suddenly decide is no longer permissible, when at the time it was committed was totally permissible, is hardly a Libertarian take.

              1. In this case, the contract said they could remove her account with no reason.

                1. Then she was a fool (like most users are) because she agreed to shitty terms of service. I am bad about reading them myself. It still doesn’t necessarily pass the smell test, e.g. her activity was permitted and then wasn’t but technically the company could arbitrarily remove her. Unfortunately, technology services get away with shit like this because people are fools and tend not to leave even when mad. Some of this is market capture, some is indifference. Very few other industries could get away with this for a variety of reasons, most notably consumer anger. In tech, we just shrug our shoulders and bitch. So the relationship currently is very one sided. Regulatory reform (e.g. ending protectionist regulations that benefit big tech while smothering competitors) is probably needed though to foster more competition. I have heard many times that if Facebook had to follow the same regulations today, when it was founded, that they never would have been able to displace MySpace.

                  1. Not only do people like WK advocate for special protections for their favorite companies, they also want them to violate standard contract law for their favorite companies.

                    Understanding simple things like

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability

                    Is too much for someone as ignorant as WK.

                    1. People like me are libertarians and believe in the simple principle that if it’s my website, I can put whatever I want on it. It’s called free speech.

                    2. This ignores that once you allow others to post you have given up some control, because you have entered into an agreement with them to allow them to post. Not saying overturn of regulate neutrality but actually stating reduce regulatory capture to foster competition and better terms of services (e.g. clearer).

                    3. “ you have entered into an agreement with them to allow them to post”

                      Says who?

                    4. Principles of economics, any economic activity is an agreement between the business provider and the customer. This isn’t a hard concept. Once I allow you to enter my house, I have given you certain permissions, however, you have also agreed to follow my rules. It is a mutual, even if not formal, arrangement. The same goes for economic activity.

                    5. First of all, that doesn’t seem to recognize either party in an economic arrangement’s right to change the arrangement.

                      Second, this is where my observation that she paid nothing to be on Twitter comes in. What economic activity?

                      Twitter’s customers are people who pay to post content on the site.

                    6. Nowhere do I say the arrangement can’t be changed, fuck I said as much in another post at 10:14. Fuck do you even bother to read what people actually say before posting? I stated that the contract can change. However, the consumer can refuse to agree to the changes and the seller can refuse to continue business. I said it in rather plain English.
                      As for economic activity, again Twitter provided the platform free of charge, but they make money off of users viewing other user created content. The fact that they didn’t charge her doesn’t negate the fact that their business model exists based upon user created content.
                      I have to ask why you are defending Twitter, rather than agreeing to my solution of deregulation to encourage competition? Are you arguing under the false impression that I am trying to eliminate S230 rather than reverse regulatory capture?

                    7. They also make money off of advertisers who pay to place ads for users to see while viewing other user created content and data that they collect and sell from users viewing other user created content. Without the user created content, and users, Twitter has nothing of value, so there is a clear exchange of goods for services.

                    8. WK is in no way a libertarian.

                    9. You just threw a bunch of stuff out there, so have to respond to it bit by bit:

                      “Nowhere do I say the arrangement can’t be changed, fuck I said as much in another post at 10:14. Fuck do you even bother to read what people actually say before posting?”

                      I guess I will make sure to scan the entire page for every word you have written before, no matter where you wrote it, before replying to the comment I’m actually replying to. And if I don’t, you have theright to throw a snit, use a lot of swear words, and personally insult me.

                      “The fact that they didn’t charge her doesn’t negate the fact that their business model exists based upon user created content.”

                      And we all should think about that before using free-of-charge social media platforms. We all kinda know they are reselling our information, but tacitly go along with it.

                      “I have to ask why you are defending Twitter, …”

                      Not defending Twitter specifically, just the right to do what one wants to with one’s own website. Free speech.

                      “Are you arguing under the false impression that I am trying to eliminate S230 rather than reverse regulatory capture?”

                      Don’t know what you are shooting for.

                    10. I said what I am aiming for I stated multiple times. And the only one in a snit seems to be you. As for not reading every response, it was literally at the beginning of this thread. So, I didn’t just throw a bunch of stuff up. You just didn’t argue what I actually stated and as a result ended up looking foolish and now are trying to blame your embarrassment on me rather than taking personal responsibility.

                  2. She could pay $15 a month for web hosting, have her own site where she can say whatever she wants.

                    1. This is an argument in bad faith. Yes she could but have no audience. The current regulatory environment makes it nearly impossible for her to reach the viewership of YouTube or Facebook. The answer is less regulations to foster competition. The “just start your own website” should be considered a logical fallacy, as it ignores the regulatory deincentives that stop businesses from growing. Large companies can easily absorb new regulatory costs, that hamper small and medium businesses from growing. Regulations are a fixed cost, and volume of product, defines how much fixed costs impacts your profitability. This is fairly basic economics.

                    2. Explain that to the HCQ Doctors who were fvckin DE-HOSTED for having the wrong narrative

                    3. So, a social media platform, because they have successfully built up an audience, have to let anyone who wants to be on their site?

                    4. NashTiger, I’m not familiar with whatever you are referring to. I kind of remember you or someone else alluding to it before, but saw no details.

                      Can you provide a link or further explanation?

                    5. Again, white Knight you are arguing a straw man, not what I’ve actually posted. I am stating that regulatory capture has made the just start your own business argument moot. The best solution is deregulation to enhance competition.
                      I never stated they have to let all comers, I am pointing out the fact that just start your own business is simplistic and doesn’t address the underlying problem, market capture supported by overregulations. I can’t believe I have to explain this (multiple times now) to a self professed libertarian. I am starting to think you read the first sentence of someone’s post and then react to that rather than the entire body of their post. You may consider this observation rude, but I consider it rude you keep strawmanning what I actually stated.

                    6. You’re no libertarian. You just gleefully favor a system where conservative ideas are suppressed.

                    7. “Again, white Knight you are arguing a straw man, not what I’ve actually posted.”

                      soldiermedic76, you do realize there are multiple people participating in this discussion, most notably JesseAz.

                    8. “You just gleefully favor a system where conservative ideas are suppressed.”

                      Gleefully? No, I just see the suggested solution of the government exerting more control over a social platform’s content as being a cure worse than the disease.

                      You speech is suppressed on Twitter? You have the recourse of posting on your own website, on Parler, all kinds of other places on the web.

                    9. But you weren’t replying to Jesse, you specifically were replying to my post and argued a point I never stated. So, just admit you made a mistake, instead of trying to make excuses.

                    10. No, soldiermedic, I was not just talking with you. I started out debating JesseAz (who dropped out after a while), and NashTiger and Shitlord and others were chiming in as well.

            2. Yes Jeff, we’ve already been over your Vox citation. They are wrong. Read the actual case.

              1. Link to the source you want me to read?

                1. I told you, the actual case.

                  What is difficult about this?

                  You choose to live off of Voxsplaining. I’m not going to change your mind if that is what you choose to do.

                  People who shy away from primary sources tend to be the least educated.

                  1. Where can I read the actual case?

                    1. Where can I read the actual case?

                      Not at all hard to find, actually. Google “meghan murphy case.”

                    2. I’m busy. Now point me to where in the transcript that evidence was presented that Twitter guaranteed her that they would publish her content and never close her account?

                      Also, I’d like to hear JesseAz’s answer to my question of whether *he* has actually read the court case.

                    3. Now point me to where in the transcript that evidence was presented that Twitter guaranteed her that they would publish her content and never close her account?

                      I don’t actually totally agree with Jesse on this. Just pointing out that this was available.

                    4. Thanks, Square.

                    5. Here’s a summary of the case:

                      https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015-4b94-ae11-776860154802

                      Jesse didn’t mention that the Murphy case was not a case without precedent, and the judge was following precedent in saying that Section 230 justified Twitter’s actions. So, maybe Jesse should be complaining about the previous cases and the principle of stare decisis.

                  2. And, be honest here, have you yourself read the entire actual case?

            3. “It’s their website, she was using free of charge.”

              If it’s their website, shouldn’t they be responsible for it?
              Or is this the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too principle in effect?

              1. They cannot have their cake and eat it, too. They have limits on what they can do.

                They are legally responsible for any content they publish, but get the one break from Section 230 that they are not considered the person responsible for the things their users say.

                They have to pay the bills, which means they have to run the website in a way that appeals to enough advertisers and data purchasers to make a profit.

                But they own the website, and therefore they can eat their cake as much as I can if I put up my own website.

          2. And, before you go there, if it were *my* website, I’d allow people to openly debate gender politics and not label it as hateful.

            1. You seem to not actually understand that the fact a website is “free” doesn’t change that a contract is established under the ToS.

              You seem ignorant about this as most things.

              1. You are oddly, highly familiar with this one case, and have it all lined up in your back pocket to use in arguments. Yet, I’m the one accused above of repeating taking points.

                1. Shocking i use the case that is most relative to the arguments being made. IT’S CRAZY!!!!

                  1. stop being so prepared and informed

                  2. No, it’s fine, but it doesn’t go well with also being coy about where you are getting all your facts. Especially, when I have caught you fudging facts many times in the past.

                    We are busy people here. Please point us to the sources you used? Direct us to relevant details in the case — such as particular bits of testimony or findings in the ruling. Otherwise, I say you are just bluffing when you say “read the case”.

              2. The relevance of her not having paid anything is (a) I highly doubt there was any promise or service agreement made on the part of Twitter to provide her a platform, (b) Twitter’s customers are advertisers and people who pay them for collected data.

                1. Contractual arrangements don’t require the exchange of money. Twitter sells data and advertising space, but the only reason this is valuable is because they host user created content. Their is an exchange of goods, user created content for site access. Then Twitter is able to sell the user data and sell advertising space. Their is a term of service that the user agrees to when they sign up. This is a binding contract between user and provider. The provider cannot exist without the users. However, if there was an out clause like you stated above, dismissing it under those pretenses was the correct call, but dismissing it under section 230 is should not be legally permissible. Not because Section 230 is bad, but because it wasn’t the content or Twitter’s ability to regulate content on their own site, but rather the question hinges on contractual arrangements. E.g. the judge was wrong for dismissing it under section 230, but may have been correct to dismiss it as Twitter didn’t violate the terms of service since they wrote in a general out clause, e.g. that they can remove users for any or no reason not specified in the terms of service. I generally dislike out clauses, and think clearer TOS, and more competition would diminish these. But if the judge actually dismissed under S230 they used the wrong legal justification.

                  1. *generalized out clauses
                    I don’t disagree with all out clauses (especially specific ones, e.g. no shoes, no shirt no business), but generalized out clauses, because it unbalanced the relationship between provider and consumer. However, if you agree to them that is your own fault.

                    1. I am fine with a generalized out clause for a website that one casually signed up for, paying nothing. If you want to characterize that as my “fault”, that’s your prerogative.

                    2. I think I stated it’s your own fault if you agree to them, didn’t I? Again I said I am opposed to them but never stated I think they should be banned and I stated if you agree to them, you can’t complain about the outcome. So once again, your counterpoint doesn’t represent what I actually wrote.

              3. Jesse, he’s a progressive. So of course he is ignorant.

                1. For the record, I am a libertarian, not a progressive.

          3. Tell Meagan Murphy that when she did sue for breach of contract only to have it dismissed on 230 grounds.

            Well that judgement was ridiculous on S230. Of course that doesn’t mean that we have to repeal S230 because some activist judge doesn’t understand the very plain language in that section.

            1. I want to repeal 230 on the grounds it is favored protections and has been expanded to covering normal contract violations. I was utterly shocked with the Patreon outcome, so maybe it is getting better. But Meagan was not a one off.

              If you truly believe 230 protections are needed, expand it to everyone, not just “platforms”.

              1. Sure… if you speak on someone else’s platform I agree that the platform shouldn’t be responsible IF it didn’t have an opportunity to screen it before publishing it. For instance, if you slander someone on live TV, I don’t think that the TV station or show should be responsible. That’s the closest analogy I can think of.

                1. For instance, if you slander someone on live TV, I don’t think that the TV station or show should be responsible. That’s the closest analogy I can think of.

                  OK. Now, what if the station or show repeatedly slanders the same person or persons on live TV? What if the TV program or station continually slanders Joe Biden but not Donald Trump? What if a network of foreign agents colludes with a broadcast network to deceive large swaths of Americans? Are the victims of these slanders to be automatically remanded to Congress for an address of their grievances? Is that how our justice system and/or free speech was designed to work?

                  1. Now, what if the station or show repeatedly slanders the same person or persons on live TV?

                    If the show does it, yes – they would be responsible for that.

                    What if the TV program or station continually slanders Joe Biden but not Donald Trump?

                    Biden should take action for slander. Trump would be uninvolved in the situation.

                    What if a network of foreign agents colludes with a broadcast network to deceive large swaths of Americans?

                    You mean like a Radio Free Europe sort of thing? Or what, exactly?

                    Are the victims of these slanders to be automatically remanded to Congress for an address of their grievances?

                    Why wouldn’t they just go to the courts like normal?

                    Is that how our justice system and/or free speech was designed to work?

                    Are you asking whether or not someone needs to damage you before you can seek recourse? The answer is “Yes.”

              2. But Meagan was not a one off.

                It is the only case I’ve ever seen you mention, though. Is there another?

            2. Of course that doesn’t mean that we have to repeal S230 because some activist judge doesn’t understand the very plain language in that section.

              Right. We have to repeal S230 because of the very plain language in the 1A that says it shouldn’t exist. Even if the 1A had a clause affording additional protections in the case of “platforms not being responsible for “illegal speech” like libel, inciting violence, etc.” and S230 would still be redundant and the selective application to web platforms and not bakeries, photographers, event planners, etc., etc. would plainly violate their 1A rights.

              1. If you’re arguing that their shouldn’t be “illegal” speech, then you’re not going to get any arguments from me. But here we are with all types of illegal speech and all types of legal risks for platforms.

                I don’t get, though, how S230 would ever apply to a bakery or whatever, as they are always the creator of the speech. Your analogs don’t make sense to me. Those are cases of the state compelling speech, which of course I disagree with too.

                1. If you’re arguing that their shouldn’t be “illegal” speech, then you’re not going to get any arguments from me.

                  I didn’t say there shouldn’t be illegal speech. Explicit and direct threats of violence should be legally actionable and, therefore, effectively illegal under the law. Even then, per the 1A and elsewhere in the Constitution and CFR, it’s explicitly not Congress’ domain to decide what constitutes such threats.

                  I don’t get, though,

                  Surprise, surprise. Yet another person who’s got free speech and section 230 all figured out, developing selective amnesia/ignorance.

                  they are always the creator of the speech.

                  Says who? Is that true even when the state compells it? I’d say it would be an inconsistency under the law or your conception of it but, considering that you prefaced your statement with “I don’t get, though”, it seems more reasonable to just assume you don’t have a clue.

                  Here’s your clue: Bakers (event planners, etc.) don’t (generally/always) bake gay wedding cakes as statements and then go around looking for gay weddings at which to serve them. In the vernacular of (your interpretation of) S230, you could quite readily say that many bakers offer a platform by which messages get conveyed in cake form and are not themselves responsible for the messages the cake projects. But, for some reason, you can’t conceive of needing to protect their free speech in such a manner while the free speech of internet platforms is inviolate to the degree that we need *both* the 1A and S230.

                2. So if I go to a bakery and tape a sign in the window reading “leo Kovalensky II is a child molester” and the bakery doesn’t take it down, you shouldn’t be able to sue the bakery?
                  What if the bakery not only doesn’t take that sign down, but when you tape up a sign reading “no, leo kovalensky II isn’t a child molester” the bakery then does take it down?
                  What if the bakery prevents you from taking the “Leo kovalensky II is a child molester” sign down yourself, then bans you from the premises to deny you any chance to respond to people who see the sign?

                  The bakery shouldn’t be liable in any of these cases?

                  1. If it was appropriately flagged, I would think the bakery would and should be liable under our current laws.

                    Now think about this. Should the bakery be liable the second that the sign is put up? What if I stood outside the bakery and took a picture immediately after the sign went up? Can they be responsible for something that they’ve had inefficient time to screen just because they might have taken down a sign earlier that they did have time to screen? Now multiply it by a million times per second. That’s what social media is facing, and you can’t see why they aren’t a bakery?

      2. This is the argument you were making the other day that social media like Twitter promised in their EULA that they would publish virtually anything a user submits.

        I asked for you to provide more evidence that they made any such promise, and I never saw any follow-up from you.

        1. Be specific in what you are asking for, because it is asking like you don’t understand how EULA’s work, how ToS’s work, or how often these companies update and modify each. All you have to do is compare their initial ToS against their current ones if you were actually intellectually curious.

          The whole business model was built off of Free Speech and them not regulating their users except in cases of criminal conduct. You can find tons of interviews from Jack about this, again if you are intellectually curious.

          But you aren’t. You like living in a state of ignorance.

          In the Murphy lawsuit she explicitly listed what ToS she agreed to when the post that was moderated after a change was made.

          So what idiotic argument are you actually trying to make here?

          Hint, we see how this stuff works with the Patreon lawsuit where they tried to change the ToS after being threatened with arbitration by users. They claimed in court their new ToS removed the pre-funded arbitration costs per user, this was rejected by a judge.

          1. “So what idiotic argument are you actually trying to make here?”

            It seems his argument is that Twitter is Twitter’s property, therefore they can do anything they want with it and should receive protection from the government fro. Ever having to defend themselves in court

            1. Now ask him to expand this argument to a Landlord.

            2. I’m asking you to point me to any clause Twitter has in any agreement they made with her that guaranteed her she would be given a platform for her posts.

              1. The ToS, should be binding for both parties and viewed as a contract. Twitter provided a service, that was regulated on the ToS. Murphy provided a good, which Twitter uses to make money off of advertisers (data and user created content that others view, providing eyes on advertising). Now, Twitter can change the ToS, but, Murphy has to agree to the new ToS. If she doesn’t, Twitter has two recourses, allow her to continue under the old ToS or end their relationship with her. The question is, did simply removing a post that violates the new ToS, without having Murphy actively agree to the new ToS, violate the contractual agreement that both parties entered when she originally signed up. This has nothing really to do with S230, other than, if Jesse is correct in the facts, the judge dismissed it as covered in S230, rather than ruling on the validity of the claim of breach of contract. The judge could have ruled that her continuing to use Twitter after the new ToS was implemented, was an agreement by her to follow the new ToS and therefore Twitter was not in breach of contract for removing the referenced post(s). Or the judge could have ruled Twitter should have every use agree, individually, to new Terms of Service and if not Twitter can remove them or end their usage. Both are plausible arguments. Dismissing under S230 was dubious, because the argument was about the actions in relationship to the ToS she initially agreed to.

    3. “”Voters aren’t going to react well to government officials eliminating popular services like Uber and Lyft. No matter where their liberal “principles” are on this issue, most people will ultimately come out against laws and elected officials that impact their lives.””

      I thought the voters wanted this. This is supposedly the law that quits allowing companies like Uber to take advantage of workers. Forget cause and affect, liberals seem not to understand that. If they are upset about it they will move to another state, then lobby that state to do the same thing.

      1. Forget cause and affect, liberals seem not to understand that.

        Yeah that’s my point. They don’t understand it until it smacks them in the face changing their way of life. Similarly, I think conservatives are missing cause and effect (or more accurately unintended consequences) with the section 230 arguments.

        It will be on the liberal politicians to convince voters that Uber and Lyft are to blame for reacting to the change. It’s a hard sell that I personally believe left-leaning moderates will see through.

        1. Similarly, I think conservatives are missing cause and effect (or more accurately unintended consequences) with the section 230 arguments.

          Prove any consequences intended or not. What will happen? The 1A will be degraded and people won’t be able to freely attend Church services online? A legion of legal trolls will sue every tech company into the ground and continue a scorched Earth campaign that will keep America’s tech industry in the dark age for decades? Congress will attempt to pass FOSTA/SESTA-like legislation without the cover of s230? The internet will become as dysfucntional and degraded as it was in 1996?

          1. The first order consequence is that I don’t think Twitter and Facebook will be able to exist as is. I’m not going to carry it out beyond there because it’s not necessary to prove my point that this is a political loser for Republicans.

            Platforms will respond by either not allowing unmoderated posts to ever go live (which sort of defeats the purpose of instant posting to social media) or they will not moderate ANY speech. The latter approach may sound good to you, but I don’t see how they can maintain ad revenue when you are forcing them to host extremely racist speech, as an example.

            So I think you’ll almost certainly see major changes to those platforms, and politically speaking the blame for those changes will be pinned on the conservatives. Conservatives will suffer at the ballot box.

            1. So you’re saying the business model of Facebook and Twitter can’t survive without being propped up by government?

              1. With his divine intution, he could make a shit ton of money shorting social media stocks, but he’s forgoeing the burden of all that free wealth so that the rest of us can enjoy Twitter in the way he knows we desire it.

                He’s seen the future of the web and it’s the same web technologies that are operating today. Because tech is completely different and transformative from those stodgy old manufacturing and durable goods industries where giants establish themselves and stymie innovation for decades.

              2. S230 “props up” social media in the same way that labor laws for contractors “prop up” ridesharing companies. Social media and ridesharing are business models that grew within the legal framework at the time. Change that framework and they’ll have to adapt to the new framework.

                Do you think it’s a good political strategy to target these services, either social media or ridesharing, that millions of Americans seem to love?

            2. I’m not going to carry it out beyond there because it’s not necessary to prove my point that this is a political loser for Republicans.

              Pretty ballsy saying “I don’t need evidence *or even complete lines of thought* to support my arguements.”

              Platforms will respond by either not allowing unmoderated posts to ever go live (which sort of defeats the purpose of instant posting to social media) or they will not moderate ANY speech. The latter approach may sound good to you, but I don’t see how they can maintain ad revenue when you are forcing them to host extremely racist speech, as an example.

              So, without evidence, you claim that there are only two possible outcomes and that one of those outcomes is non-viable.

              You’d think that with such prognosticative powers, you’d understand free speech a little better.

              So I think you’ll almost certainly see major changes to those platforms, and politically speaking the blame for those changes will be pinned on the conservatives. Conservatives will suffer at the ballot box.

              Given your understanding about free speech and your impeccable prognosticative powers about how social media would respond, I can see how conservatives would be willing to defy your wisdom and profound visions. If only, when asked for evidence, you had actually brought some evidence.

              1. What evidence exists for a hypothetical situation that hasn’t happened? I’ve not seen a realistic analogy yet that describes the way that social media works.

                What do you think would happen to Facebook and Twitter if S230 were eliminated? Nothing?

                And now back on the subject at hand, assuming that you aren’t naive enough to say nothing, do you think moderate voters will be inclined to vote for someone they see as having changed something that they use in their daily lives 100 times a day or so?

        2. Californian are literally retarded. A government official could rape a California’s mother while pouring sugar into their gas tank, then tell them they had to do it because of a corporation. And the retard Californian would be pissed at the corporation.

        3. That’s why the only way we’re going to get rid of the war on drugs is to make heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine popular with voters generally, or at least “liberal” voters. We almost had that with cocaine a few decades back. We might get some loosening w.r.t. medically-used opiates again if enough voters need them for pain.

          What will it take to make heroin popular? An absolutely awful society, I guess. Not worth the price. Like solving the illegal immigration problem by making life worse in the country being migrated to, or cutting taxes by making people so poor there’s nothing to tax.

    4. I’d like to see the logic explaining that an independent contractor who contracts with both Uber and Lift (and maybe DoorDash) isn’t an independent contractor. If I freelance for multiple companies I’m not considered an employee of any of them.

  9. …surgical masks and fitted N95 respirators are best at protecting the wearer from COVID-19.

    I thought I was wearing the mask for others. I don’t want to be selfish.

    1. Given the rate of droplet transmission from neck fleeces and bandannas, he suggests that Americans move away from both coverings immediately. “I do think they should be abandoned, especially given that gaiters were shown to increase transmission,” says Adalja. “Not every mask is going to be equivalent. … I think that many people are just wearing these face coverings to check a box and not realizing that in order to serve a purpose they need to be effective.”

      For those who are still confused about why masks are necessary, he notes that asymptomatic spread is one of the most important factors to keep in mind. “There are many people out there that don’t know that they’re infected, and the face coverings are one way to give people the assurance that there is some source control going on,” says Adalja. “If we have rapid tests that we can know the minute we step outside whether we’re infected or not, that’s one thing, but we’re not anywhere near that,” says Adalja. “So for now, this is the measure we’re left with.”

      N95 masks are for me, not for thee

      1. hilarious how sarcasmic was saying how easy it was to wear a bandana in his virtue signaling….

      2. Oof. The masks are manufactured consent. They’re a non-pharmaceutical approach that is more about precaution than empirical science.

        There are way more studies (including those determining N95s aren’t exactly effective either) out there concluding masks aren’t effective. The studies that encourage mask do so on the premise there’s widespread use (hence they call for mandatory coercion) essentially, when you cut down the wagon, concluding ‘it’s better than nothing.’

        My contention is you don’t engage in behaviorial modification based on flawed and specious evidence on the notion ‘it can help’.

        The idea of healthy and asymptomatic people wearing a mask to stop the spread is retarded. The virus is so small it’s a vapor basically. It’s going through you shitty mask.

        1. Masks are being pushed purely on precautionary principle. until April of this year the CDC nor the NIH ever suggested Masks would work for viruses.

          1. One can only hope that we’re at the far end of the pendulum swing in favor of the precautionary principle, and that the overbearing response to CV drives enough of us the push it back the other way.

          2. Even then, they were only suggested as part of a larger program of PPE and associated training.

            You can’t just don an N95 mask and sit next to someone with ebola for 12 hrs. and it doesn’t matter if you’re wearing a moon suit when you receive your cash back from the grocery store clerk if you immediately remove the suit and stuff the cash in your pocket.

            Remember when not even UV exposure was going to kill the virus and it hung out on surfaces for 6-8 hours? If the virus can just accumulate on surfaces around you, then what good is/are masks?

        2. but my shitty mask coordinates so well with my ugly sandals

        3. “My contention is you don’t engage in behaviorial modification based on flawed and specious evidence on the notion ‘it can help’.”

          But what about behavior modification for its own sake? Or for the sake of population conditioning?

      3. I thought the Asymptomatic spread thing had been debunked long ago.
        How’d they sneak it back in?

        1. Because everyone breaths. So everyone has to wear a mask. Simple science for the pro-mask side.

          They basically ignore the whole inverse square property of breath and instead push models that show breathing can expand well beyond a 6 foot radius, so therefore everyone needs to wear a mask even if not sneezing or coughing.

          It’s all BS.

        2. >>How’d they sneak it back in?

          under threat of school reopenings

      4. Most masks will be looked at historically, like the plague masks that plague doctors wore during the height of the Black Plague. At least this is my educated guess.

      5. “ There are many people out there that don’t know that they’re infected”

        That proves just how dangerous this virus is. It’s so bad that a large plurality of those that get it can’t even tell if they have it unless they take a test. That definitely justifies wrecking the economy and sowing chaos.

      6. “I think that many people are just wearing these face coverings to check a box and not realizing that in order to serve a purpose they need to be effective.””

        I think that most people are just wearing these face coverings because the government has demanded that they be worn and that neither the people, nor the government give a rat’s ass about whether or not they serve an actual legitimate purpose.

        1. No, I think that most people wearing masks have delusional fears of virus risks (and delusional hopes for what the mask will do), or have strong tribal affiliations and wear the mask as a virtue signal (and a justification to shame non-tribal members).

        2. yeah pretty much.

      7. “I do think they should be abandoned, especially given that gaiters were shown to increase transmission,”

        wtf? Do they suck in droplets more effectively or something?

    2. Surgical masks I doubt. But a properly fitting N95 should if you have been properly fit tested.

      Why talk about masks, that’s old news. It’s all about goggles and protecting your eyes these days.

      What I find funny is that to make sure a N95 will protect you, they do a fit test. You can do your own type fit test at home by putting your mask on, then spray scented air freshener in front of you. If you can smell it, you are not protected. That is how easy virus particles can move through your mask in either direction. If you sneeze in a mask, virus particles are pushed out of your mask with every exhale.

      1. There are even empirical studies that determined even N95 are inconclusive.

        They can fit away to their heart’s content. It’s still mostly all theatre.

        But people actually believe in them so much they’re willing to assault people for it.

        Hysteria and low IQ are a toxic mix.

        1. “”But people actually believe in them so much they’re willing to assault people for it.””

          Mask Nazis.

    3. I had a meeting with a couple who wore their mask. their mask were so filthy I was more worried about anything on the surface of their mask getting to me. If you have to use a mask use a disposable all others are a risk to other and as much to your self from accumulation

    4. the test wasn’t about protecting the wearer, it measured the number of droplets exhaled.

      1. A fit test does not measure any number of droplets.

        It’s a funny exercise I’ve watched new providers have to go through. It’s basically similar to what I said but they put a funny looking box over their heads a spray a sweet substance through a hole in the box. If you can taste the sweetness, it is not a properly fitting mask.

        The first time I saw it I had no idea what they were doing and it look odd as hell.

  10. https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1293036793948827649

    Seattle’s first black police chief is resigning after the city council quite randomly cut her pay and then let anarchists repeatedly surround her house

    1. They needed to get rid of the last grownup in Seattle.

      1. Doesn’t apply to her. She was the one that was telling residents to call 911 if they hear offensive speech.

    2. By the logic of today does that not make th he Seattle council racist and sexist?

      1. No, because blackness is cancelled out by putting on the blue. How many times have we seen blacks (or whites for that matter) shot by black officers but the conclusion is still “systematic racism”?

  11. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is reportedly on the cusp of choosing his running mate.

    “Joe… Joe!! *** snaps fingers *** Can you say, ‘It gives me great pleasure to announce ….’?”

    1. I figured it would be Harris, based on hair.
      Bass would have been a great choice, for Trump to rant on her record.
      So now he’s leaning toward Whitmer, who is hated even in her own state.

      1. Still think it’s going to be Rice, given the stock selling she’s been allegedly doing this last week.

        Go read her wiki. Especially between the lines. She’s been an idealistic incompetent for a very long time at State. I didn’t realize she helped with the fuckup that got Mobutu deposed, kicking off Africa’s bloodiest civil war. Yes, even bloodier than Rwanda, though it took longer.

        1. Still think it’s going to be Rice

          I’d put money on it. Democrat voters want Obama back.

          1. “Democrat voters want Obama back.”

            The obvious answer to that is to get Michelle to run. But I guess she doesn’t want to, or suffers from depression, or some other damned thing.

            Which is good, because I don’t think Trump could beat a Biden/Obama ticket. Not after the virus mess and rioting.

          2. I think Biden would do it just because she’s a player in FISA fiasco.

        2. Still think it’s going to be Rice

          That’s kinda what my gut’s saying, too.

          I didn’t realize she helped with the fuckup that got Mobutu deposed, kicking off Africa’s bloodiest civil war.

          In addition, of course, to her classics of having been instrumental alongside HRC in pushing the UN to overthrow Qaddafi’s government and kick off the Libyan civil war and in convincing the Obama administration to secretly put troops in Syria and do whatever it took to prolong that war as long as possible while not even actually pursuing victory in any way.

          A real winner, that one.

          1. “In addition, of course, to her classics of having been instrumental alongside HRC in pushing the UN to overthrow Qaddafi’s government and kick off the Libyan civil war…”

            Yeah. She wasn’t the NatSec Advisor at that point, but I guess she was close enough to HRC to get splattered by that exploding toilet. ‘Mentee’ and ‘close friend of Madeline Albright’, was another tidbit that stuck out from her wiki bio. Because the Balkans Crisis was handled so smoothly by that crew.

            Can we get some outside people to maybe, just maybe unfuck State and the CIA? Doesn’t it get old, reading about how all of these incompetent cronies went to school with each other, hang out with each other, and keep making the same silly mistakes as one another?

            1. She wasn’t the NatSec Advisor at that point, but I guess she was close enough to HRC to get splattered by that exploding toilet.

              She even goes so far as to claim no small share of the credit:

              Together with National Security Council figure Samantha Power, who already supported the U.S.-led military intervention in Libya, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who came to support it, the three overcame internal opposition from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, security adviser Thomas E. Donilon, and counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, to have the administration advance a UN proposal to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and authorize other military actions as necessary.

              On March 17, 2011, the UK, France and Lebanon joined the U.S. to vote for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 while Brazil, Germany, and India joined permanent Security Council members China and Russia in abstaining. Rice and Clinton played major roles in gaining approval for the resolution. Clinton said the same day that establishing a no-fly zone over Libya would require the bombing of air defenses. Rice said, “we are interested in a broad range of actions that will effectively protect civilians and increase the pressure on the Gaddafi regime to halt the killing and to allow the Libyan people to express themselves in their aspirations for the future freely and peacefully.”

              Can we get some outside people to maybe, just maybe unfuck State and the CIA?

              The answer would seem to be a resounding “NO!” No matter how much or how badly they fuck up, they assume that they’re the experts and no one else could possibly do better.

              Every single president that has been elected in my lifetime ran on a policy of less engagement overseas. Every single one ran up against a foreign policy establishment that really didn’t give a shit what they thought.

    2. No way the DNC would just let Biden pick a VP to nominate.

  12. “Rides would be more expensive, which would significantly reduce the number of rides people could take and, in turn, the number of drivers needed to provide those trips.”

    Which was the intention of A.B. 5.

    1. Yes. This is what the electorate of California wanted, let them suffer.

  13. https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/1292871177682194433

    This
    @NBCNews
    report on their field trip to Wuhan Institute of Virology has several errors, but the most glaring is that it misrepresents what U.S. officials wrote in diplomatic cables in 2018. I’ll explain:

    1. NBC (and others) is an arm of the CCP, but let’s all talk about Russian memes instead!

    2. Hopefully they dined at the cafeteria.

    3. Gee a Communist dictatorship dupes American media with false narratives. Say it isn’t true. Who would have thought that that could happen. With the exception of anyone who has studied history that is.

  14. …Biden had interviewed all of the final candidates, and is now in the final process of picking a running mate.

    Depends on which passed the smell test.

    1. Given Harris’s appreciation of the casting couch approach to political advancement, can we now conclude Harris has the inside edge?

      1. More like pole position…

      2. Called it.

  15. https://twitter.com/SteveKrak/status/1292929054094565380

    Brianna Keilar did a segment on some people enjoying the beach in Chicago, but not on the violence and looting that happened over night. Tells you a lot…

    1. It’s insane. Block after block of some of the most expensive commercial real estate in the nation, was systematically looted and damaged, and the news shrugged its collective shoulders and went, ‘Meh.’

      It’s coming to your city next. Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis are all just ahead of the curve.

  16. Fleece gaiters are worse than nothing, according to the study.

    Obviously anyone caught wearing a fleece gaiter should be charged with a HATE CRIME!

    1. Anyone wearing a fleece gaiter during the summer is an idiot.

      1. What if they’re doing it just to avoid being harassed by virtue signalers?

        1. Then they’re an idiot and a pussy.

  17. Biden has already committed to picking a female vice president, but who it’ll be beyond that remains to be seen.

    Biden’s going to pick Geraldine Ferraro.

    1. It would be a hoot if, in order to show he’s Unifying The Country™, he chooses Ivanka Trump.

      1. I bet her hair smells nice.

    2. He’s gonna pick that Jenner chick but call her “Bruce”.

    3. Biden’s going to pick Geraldine Ferraro.

      “That girl’s got a future!”

  18. …most economists don’t think that the $600 bonus kept many people from returning to work.

    What’s the Venn diagram look like of those economists and economists for increasing the minimum wage?

      1. jerk

        1. we all gotta duck when the shit hits the fan.

          1. Where’s my five pound block of cheese?

            1. social security has run out on you and me.

    1. Totally and completely detached from reality. Ask anyone making an extra $600.

  19. More bad economic news.

    Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch only earned $759,000,000 yesterday.

    Not enough to get him out of the $5 billion hole he’s in this year because of Drumpf’s high-tariff / low-immigration policies.

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

    1. Looks like 6 or 7 more days in the booming Trump economy should bring him up to snuff.

  20. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/short-timer-half-of-democrats-dont-think-biden-will-serve-all-four-years

    A majority of voters, including half of Democrats, do not think that 77-year-old Democrat Joe Biden will serve all four years as president, putting added pressure on who he plans to choose as vice president, and potential successor, according to a new survey.

    According to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, 59% of likely voters believe Biden’s vice president will take over in his first term if he’s elected in November.

    1. Ugh, I can’t believe that many people have been fooled by right-wing smears about Biden’s alleged “cognitive decline.” It’s as ridiculous as their lies about RBG being unhealthy.

      #BidenIsAsSharpAsEver

      1. #BidenIsAsSharpAsEver

        Not exactly reassuring, OBL.

        1. Some of OBL’s very best work is of the “damning with faint praise” variety…

      2. +1 dog faced pony soldier

    2. According to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, 59% of likely voters believe Biden’s vice president will take over in his first term if he’s elected in November.

      I think the VP will take over in the first week of his term.

      1. I think Biden’s VP would have to take over before the inauguration.

      2. I say they keep him around longer then that. At least until after the first big legislation package, that way when it goes south (and it will go south) they have Biden to blame.

        1. The won’t get rid of him at all, he’ll just be a puppet.

    3. A vote for FDR is a vote for Truman!

      1. Truman won’t be soft on mainland Japan like FDR was…

    4. Probably why the Biden campaign hasn’t ‘picked’ a running mate yet. The less time voters have to know the running mate the less time they’ll have to grow to hate her.

  21. https://twitter.com/kausmickey/status/1293056315170754560

    “So when the Supreme Ct proclaimed that this illegal program had to continue because the administration hadn’t jumped through the right hoops-hoops the prior administration ignored entirely in concocting it in the first place-something broke on the Right.” Roberts really effed up

    1. Did the DACA Ruling Bury Constitutionalism?
      https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-the-daca-ruling-bury-constitutionalism/

      So when the Supreme Court proclaimed that this illegal program had to continue because the administration hadn’t jumped through the right hoops — hoops the prior administration ignored entirely in concocting it in the first place — something broke on the Right. Many in the administration, in Congress, and among the citizenry simply concluded that this is now the only way it’s possible to govern, and that fastidious avoidance of pen-and-phone governance by Republicans would represent unilateral disarmament. Even if the administration makes another go at rescission of DACA (assuming there’s a second term) and this time leaves no pretext for our weather-vane chief justice to latch onto, the damage may be irreversible. If these are the new rules, we play by them or surrender.

      I wish this weren’t so. And maybe it’s not permanent; maybe we can wade back across the Rubicon. But I fear that those of us insisting on adherence to constitutional governance are like the aging Roman Emperor Claudius, as channeled by Robert Graves, who hatches a plan for his son Britannicus to restore the Republic. The young man is appalled, and answers his father: “I don’t believe in the Republic. No one believes in the Republic anymore. No one does except you. You’re old, Father, and out of touch.”

      1. Roberts has a pathway to extend ignoring DACA for another 5 years until his political preference of a president gets in. He still has “animus” in his belt to use to kick it back again.

      2. I do not disagree with that. Roberts’ logical contortions in an attempt to appease the Left into not attacking the Court has undermined the logical basis of Constitutional law regarding executive power and that what “Constitutional” means depends in large part of the policy preferences of the Leftist justices.

        His attempt to preserve the respect for the court has been an utter failure.

      3. “Did the DACA Ruling Bury Constitutionalism?”

        Sebelius should have been everyone’s first clue about that.

        Roberts needs to go. Or get burned with whatever is being held over him. He’s making Souter look like a brilliant Constitutionalist pick by Bush the Greater.

  22. Still think WHITE SUPREMACY and SYSTEMIC RACISM are overstated?

    A Black student was told to take off his Black Lives Matter mask at his high school graduation ceremony

    Only a Democrat in the White House can put an end to this absolutely brutal oppression.

    #LibertariansForBiden

    1. Well, the picture shows he’s culturally appropriating White hair, so one supposes the incident is a wash.

  23. “I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats,” said Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, according to NBC Chicago. “That makes sure that person has clothes.”

    “That is reparations,” Atkins continued. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance.”

    1. Marxist “wisdom”.

    2. The case for reeducation camps

      1. The case for helicopter rides.

        1. The case for restorative justice, repeatedly delivered at 3200 feet per second.

    3. This is progress. You quoted someone actually affiliated with BLM.

      1. This isn’t progress, you’re still this stupid.

        I do like how you rely on so many common fallacies like no true scotsman.

      2. >>You quoted someone actually affiliated with BLM.

        What about when he quoted the founder who said she and BLM were Marxist

        1. I’ve never disputed that. I don’t even like BLM. The point I have made, repeatedly, is that commenters here have a habit of playing fast and loose with building a conservative narrative by describing various rioters and other assholes as “BLM” when no affiliation has been established.

    4. Magical thinking rationalizing petty evil.

    5. >>because these businesses have insurance.

      somebody’s never made a liability claim.

      1. Ariel’s a hood rat, she wouldn’t even know how to spell liability claim.

    6. it’s not stealing if they have insurance.
      rich people only donate to charity because of the tax writeoff.

      1. rich people only donate to charity because of the tax writeoff.

        To be fair, that’s basically been the NBA’s business model for the WNBA.

    7. This guy won’t mind someone breaking his kneecaps then. He has insurance, right?

      Thanks Obama.

    1. It’s almost as if counties institute mask mandates (along with a bunch of other measures) because they have high transmission rates. Those rates then naturally drop due to increased social distancing (much of it “organic” because people shockingly don’t want to get sick) and other factors. Then this dude comes in and tries to say it was because of the masks. History will not be kind to people like him.

  24. Forcing terms between employers and employees: that’s violence.

  25. New York City police officers stood idly by as an 11-year-old was beaten in broad daylight, reports the New York Post.

    Alternate headline if cops intervened: Cops harass and abuse Black teenagers in broad daylight.

    1. What the headline missed;

      “The officers were met by a large crowd while attempting to come to this person’s assistance. They were outnumbered. Projectiles were thrown at them. And they were forced to reposition and call every available resource in the area,” said rep Al Baker.

    2. “”Alternate headline if cops intervened: Cops harass and abuse Black teenagers in broad daylight. “”

      Pretty much. What were the cops doing to do, ask them nicely to quit fighting? That situation looked like force was need to break it up. The use of force is never pretty, even when needed. There would be video of the force need to put people in handcuffs. For some, even that is going too far. So here we are.

      1. Cue the “O MAH GAH! O MAH GAH! O MAH GAH! O MAH GAH! O MAH GAH! O MAH GAH!” screeching as soon as they waded into the fray.

  26. The federal government’s dietary guidelines are expected to be released this December.

    With all due respect, this is non-news.

    OTOH, the article notes that:

    The DGAC continues to recommend three dietary patterns: the Healthy Mediterranean-Style Pattern, the Healthy Vegetarian Pattern and the Healthy U.S.-Style Pattern, none of which reflect the cultural heritage of many Americans. If you are Black, brown or Indigenous and want to reduce your chronic disease risk while also eating foods and flavors that connect you to family and community, you won’t get guidance from the DGA. This omission has received criticism for years, and is more glaring than ever in light of ongoing protests over racial equity.

    Yet another great excuse for rioting!

    1. But still unfair if white people are healthier.

      1. Everything is so terrible and unfair.

    2. How come Black and Indigenous get capitalized, but not brown?

    3. If you are Black, brown or Indigenous and want to reduce your chronic disease risk while also eating foods and flavors that connect you to family and community, you won’t get guidance from the DGA.

      We’re Americans dammit! Chronic disease *is* our cultural heritage!

      1. I’m surprised people without type 2 diabetes are even allowed to vote.

  27. job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you cAn work with your own working hours. You cAn work this job As A pArt time or As A full time job. You cAn eArn from 65$ An hour to 1000$ A dAy! There is no limitAtions, it All depends from you And how much you wAnt to eArn eAch dAy…..ReadMore.

  28. 1. I really do wish Uber and Lyft would just suspend operations in CA until AB5 is repealed. Between the drivers and the riders, the politicians should pay attention.
    2. The real question is this; will Joe remember who he picked long enough to make the announcement?
    3. Clearly we need to outlaw basketball.
    4. The federal dietary guidelines are wrong. They always are. That is why they get reissued so often. And now they proudly announce ahead of time that they will be explicitly sexist, as if there was a difference between men (and women who think they are men) and women (and men who think the are women).

    1. 1. They won’t, unless the unions tell them to.
      2. If the teleprompter goes down during his acceptance speech…
      3. If you outlaw basketball, player will be outlaws. So no big changes.
      4. The guidelines were right. Now they’re righter. We’ll keep releasing more right guidelines until they’re right.

  29. The federal government’s dietary guidelines are expected to be released this December. They’re likely to include advice that men do more to curtail their alcohol intake. Good luck.

    If the good luck quip was about sandwiches and women, the editor would be called racist.

    1. Then doxxed and pursued to the ends of the social media Earth, to much cheering.

  30. Aussie Covid-19 Response: Warrantless Home Invasion, Smashed Car Windows
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/09/aussie-covid-19-response-warrantless-home-invasion-smashed-car-windows/

    “We had to smash car windows and pull people out because they wouldn’t give us details…they wouldn’t tell us where they’re going”

  31. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1292804013344337921.html

    Look at Chicago and understand this is every city, every town, under Democrat rule. If you’re a working middle-class American, you’re fighting for your life in the 2020 election, and voting Democrat is suicide. Abolish the Police is the only issue and they’re on the wrong side.

  32. https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1293043423218458624

    A good point about remote schooling: before 2010 or so it wouldn’t even have been theoretically possible. The broadband capacity didn’t exist.

    So we would have had to keep schools open, and WE WOULD HAVE. To some extent, we’re doing this because we can – the worst reason of all.

    1. Some places, like mine, still don’t have the broadband capacity to do online school. Especially with more than 1 kid, and an adult having to do online working.

      1. “”Especially with more than 1 kid,””

        Are they still phoning into a BBS?

    2. I’ve noticed that the internet is doing some serious buckling under the load lately. Connection speeds aren’t that much slower, but making the connection takes much longer and gets interrupted more often. Video streaming is taking a hit, big time. Sometimes I click a link and it’ll take 10-20 seconds before the page loads. I feel like I’m back in 1996.

      1. Soon to be #1 excuse on why Johnny couldn’t do his homework.

  33. https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1293037775877541889

    By the way: Whether you support Biden or Trump, you should be terrified that will not have a declared winner on Election Night.

    Since half the country hates the other half, and vice-versa, this is NOT GOOD.

    This disaster is entirely preventable. We need to prevent it.

    1. We have allowed the economy and the POTUS election to be knee-capped for an illness which has caused the deaths of 1/2 of 1/10 of 1% of the population.

    2. That’s exactly why they’re doing it. Keep the populist rage pointed between the populace. If the elites actually have to account for their epic mismanagement of society, it might get Russia 1917 ugly. Better to keep them arguing amongst themselves about which amount of skin melanin makes you a better person. Works every time.

    3. So what? We have to wait for the results. Big deal. Television election night pundits hardest hit.

      And most people get along with each other despite partisan warriors best efforts to drag us down into their stupid Red vs. Blue Team culture war.

      1. How long is an acceptable wait time? Days ? Weeks?

        1. Looks like December 8th would be the date when there would start to be problems in a state’s compliance with the electoral college process:

          https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/key-dates

      2. Sanctimonious virtue signaling seems to be your favorite.

      3. Seems like the opposite of progress. Technology should make the results faster. When I was a kid they called the elections before I could even vote in the West.

        1. The early calling got really bad for a while.

  34. https://twitter.com/dailystar/status/1293042312399007744

    Prince Harry’s delighted response after Meghan Markle ‘went to the toilet in the woods’

    1. Where else was she supposed to go? It was a camping trip in Botswana, right? If there were toilets available, OTOH, why the hell wasn’t she using them?

      There were similar idiocies from, IIRC, Gwyneth Paltrow and Drew Barrymore about having to shit outside when visiting Nepal, how wonderful and natural it was, and crap like that.

    2. Still a prince? I thought he quit.

  35. So we’re just ignoring the whole man-attacks-secret-service at the Whitehouse thing?

    1. Too local.

    2. Coincidentally, some enemy of the people had gotten #InterruptTrump trending about an hour prior to the incident.
      The Secret Service then interrupted Trump for security protocol during his press briefing.
      But don’t worry – #InterruptTrump was all about disrupting the president while he was speaking to the American people, not attacking the Whitehouse (we have Canadian NGOs to plan that)

    3. The morning links is not a newspaper.

      1. Holy balls, such brilliant insight!

        1. He genius knows no lower bound.

        2. It’s actually a pretty fundamental fact to point out to people who complain that the morning links didn’t cover this or that topic.

      2. Yeah, the President of the US getting taken off a stage because his security detail shot someone outside his house, is totally not newsworthy, or has anything to do with potential future infringements on liberty.

        Just go away. You suck at this trolling game.

        1. It’s totally newsworthy and was in the newspapers and Internet news feeds. A lot. All of us know about it because it was covered — by newspapers and other news sources.

          The morning links are not a newspaper.

  36. New Study Finds Sweden’s Refusal To Lock Down Saved The Economy Without Sacrificing Lives
    Sweden has an intact economy, a citizenry with greater immunity to COVID-19, and a death rate per million lower than Italy’s — all with no lockdown.
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/10/new-study-finds-swedens-refusal-to-lock-down-saved-the-economy-without-sacrificing-lives/

    1. It has a lower rate than Quebec too. And NY/NJ/MA.

      They’re going to win the long game.

      Meanwhile here, we’re ramping up the doomsday scenarios for the fall.

      1. New Zealand will lose. They locked out all the tourists and now they have no immunity, and want tourists to come back.

    2. JFree hardest hit.

      1. If only.

  37. Interesting results from a Roku poll regarding live sports during the pandemic and how their absence is changing consumer behavior:

    1) Of recent cord cutter households, 28% ranked the loss of live televised sports as their #1 reason for cutting the cord.

    2) Only 17% of recent Cord Cutter households said would they re-subscribe to traditional pay TV when live sports returns this year.

    https://image.roku.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/PR-017572_IG_Design_D2.2_pd.pdf

    If we assume that the 17% of the people who said they will go back to cable or satellite television once live sports resume, are all from the 28% who ranked the loss of live televised sports as their #1 reason for cutting the cord, that would mean more than 40% of the people who left cable and satellite because of the lack of live sports aren’t going back when live sports resume.

    I suspect there are still a lot of new Roku users who don’t realize that local home games are broadcast for free, that they can get those home games through streaming services, too, and that you can subscribe to NHL Center Ice, NFL Sunday Ticket, MLB, NBA, etc. without subscribing to Direct TV or cable. There is very little reason for that 60% to go back to cable or satellite for live sports–and the pandemic driven Roku users may just not realize that yet. (Can you even watch MotoGP through cable?)

    The interesting question is why people who left cable and satellite because of the lack of live sports say they’re not going back when live sports resume. Some of it’s, no doubt, because they’re finding other routes to watch the same stuff and through packages that are far less expensive and even more tailored to their tastes via streaming than what they get from their local cable company. I suspect some of it is that plenty of consumers aren’t willing to pay a premium so that they and their kids can enjoy rooting for their hometown team–after watching the spectacle of their hometown heroes disrespect our national anthem.

    The reason the Padres wear camo uniforms and play the Marine Corp Hymn in appreciation for the recruits visiting from Camp Pendleton is because the fans love it.

    The reason the NFL does flyovers for the Superbowl and often spreads out a flag that covers the whole field during the national anthem is because the fans love it. And it’s been that way since forever. And that doesn’t change just because the shitheads at CNN, MSNBC, and the league office at the NBA say so. I think the NBA and the NFL are hurting themselves with a fat slice of consumers. They’re trying to dictate terms to the market, but markets don’t work that way. The market tells you what to do, and you better listen. Meanwhile, Roku sales keep increasing.

    1. Sports are dead to me. 40 year junkie. Here’s my story.

      I don’t miss it and lemme tell ya, I’d rather no sports than seeing this sad spectacle on display at the moment. Those cut out mannequins are just too creepy and remind me of the hysteria we’re mired in.

      1. I’m certainly not paying a premium to watch it. The crowd noise and reactions certainly made sports better. I was looking at subscribing to NHL Center Ice, but not when they were just playing games to see who is playing whom in the elimination round. The crowd for that Boston vs. Caps game I watched might have been just as bored if they were there. That game meant nothing. It was worse than the All-Stars! It was preseason.

        But I also think the other sports got their circuits twisted around in terms of what people find offensive. What consumers find offensive isn’t determined by the league office or the players. If consumers won’t pay a premium to watch the NBA because they find what the NBA players are doing offensive, then that money goes away–regardless of whether the social justice warriors in the back office think they should. Everyone was already saying that this is probably the last time the NFL will be able to auction off a big contract for broadcasting rights, because of streaming, but if they manage to pull off a full season this year, dissing the national anthem isn’t likely to win them any new subscribers–or a big ten year contract this time around.

        I’m not paying a premium through cable fees or NFL Sunday ticket to watch millionaires shit on what I care about. We’ve had times in the past where the media seemed to think that disrespecting patriotism was fashionable. The consumer reaction was Good Guys Wear Black, Rambo, and a host imitators that lasted for decades. They think Millenials are somehow different. They aren’t. They buying guns and fleeing to the suburbs like their white flight parents and grandparents. We’ve been through this all before. “John Wayne Was a Nazi” never had a chance on Top 40 radio. We’ll go through it again. Only next time, the NFL and the NBA won’t be so popular for having shit all over the tastes of their paying consumers.

        1. “Good Guys Wear Black…”

          +1 roundhouse kick. Takes me back.

      2. I missed sports so much I’m even watching random baseball games.

        I can’t believe the Big 10+ is considering scrapping football because a few people are going to get sick regardless. Football funds all the other sports.

        1. Baseball is having problems with breakouts, and football players can’t isolate on the field the way baseball players. How do you stay more than six feet away from each other on the football field?

          Baseball is talking about going bubble format–like the hubs they’re using in the NHL, and I’m sure they can’t replicate that in college ball. Long term, I think a bubble might be the end of the NCAA–if that’s any consolation.

          If they go regional hub in college ball, the reasons for letting small schools play against Power Five opponents will start to make even less sense than it does now. The Power Five really should start their own league. Why are they sharing that TV revenue with all those smaller teams when they could keep it all for themselves?

          1. Positive test does not equal sick.
            It’s bullshit

      3. I flipped to a boxing match the other day and there was a fake crowd and fake crowd noise. It would have been so much better without it. I just kept flipping because I just couldn’t even.

        1. It’s orwellian as hell

    2. You can get a package of Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN for a LOT less than cable. Toss in an antenna for local broadcast. My Roku uses a USB drive to buffer live TV (pause and rewind) from the antenna.

      1. I’m using Tablo for local broadcasts, which translates the signal from an antenna to my wifi and then broadcasts it to Roku or anything I want.

        Sling sells AirTV, which does the same thing, and if you subscribe to Sling, it will integrate the broadcast channel guide from AirTv into the “cable” channel guide in Sling seamlessly.

        People who live in a Locast market can use that for all local broadcasts, instead, and they’re in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Dallas, Minneapolis, Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

        There’s no reason to pay for local broadcast channels. I hate seeing people getting ripped off to pay for things that they don’t want, but even worse, I hate seeing people paying for cable news channels–whether they watch them or not.

        One of the reasons CNN and MSNBC get away with broadcasting the garbage they do and can finance it despite the tiny audiences they draw is because unwitting cable consumers pay for it whether they watch it or not–and don’t realize it isn’t necessary to pay for channels they don’t want to get the channels they do want.

        It’s the same thing with the major networks. Because the law requires the cable companies to carry local broadcasters’ signals, consumers end up paying for having the channels on their cable system regardless of whether they actually watch those channels.

        Getting Congress to pass a law to repeal the rent seeking is difficult. Convincing my fellow Americans to stop bending over for these people should be easy, and little by little, consumers are getting the message by word of mouth. I finally got the old folks to make the switch–and they couldn’t be happier. They especially like not having to switch HDMI ports to go to Netflix.

    3. I can get NHL center ice with roku? That’s it for directv then.

      Your posts can be a long slog, but this is why I read em anyway. Haha.

  38. Interesting Local Story here over the weekend, and by Local I mean tHe Northern Hemisphere.
    Seems the obscure Russia hoax that was briefly mentioned 3-4 years ago, was indeed cooked up by some unsavory international characters in conjunction with some National Security types, and included Russian Interference with the Presidential transition, as told by someone connected to one of the central figures and published by a RWNJ who used to be in the Rolling Stones or something

    I know we like to focus on important stuff here like Cardi B, but I got a kick out of it and thought it should be mentioned.

    1. Memory Holed!

      Come on man, if this was newsworthy the newspaper of record would absolutely cover it. I mean, Abu Grab was covered for 40 days straight on the front page. Now that was an important story! Nobody died, but man did it embarrass W.

  39. Biden was supposed to have already picked someone. I wonder what they uncovered about his first pick at the last minute that caused them to pull back and choose someone else…

    1. The choice made him look bad by comparison.

    2. She supported Castro and Scientology.

      1. Hollywood type?

        1. Karen Bass. California.

      2. not good for the Florida vote

    3. Well, we for sure will never see a story about how ol’ Joe is indecisive – – – – – – – –

      Or maybe he made the pick, and then forgot who it was?

    4. They probably have someone picked out already. Not announcing it is actually quite a good move. Less time to bring out dirt about the candidate, plus the added bonus of more attention to the Biden campaign for not picking one yet. The only thing Republicans can do about it is point out how irregular it is to not have a running mate by mid August, which does nothing to voter perceptions of the VP candidate.

  40. “AAA Study Finds Flaws with Driver Assistance Technology”
    […]
    “New AAA research finds inconsistencies in automated systems that combine speed, braking, lane centering”
    https://media.acg.aaa.com/aaa-study-finds-flaws-with-driver-assistance-technology-1.htm

    They WORK! Sometimes.

    1. “Never let perfect be the enemy of good enough to be profitable”.

    2. Even when it fails it’s still better than most drivers.

  41. “The ruling has provoked a backlash from Lyft and Uber, who argue that the vast majority of their drivers prefer the flexibility that comes with being independent contractors, and that having to classify drivers as employees will dramatically increase the cost of rides.”

    So what? Drivers, like all other members of the Proletariat, cannot defy the Central Planning Committee.

    “Should drivers be classified as employees, ‘Uber would only have full-time jobs for a small fraction of our current drivers and only be able to operate in many fewer cities than today,’ wrote Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi in a Monday op-ed for The New York Times. ‘Rides would be more expensive, which would significantly reduce the number of rides people could take and, in turn, the number of drivers needed to provide those trips.'”

    Again, so what? Market economics are capitalist oppression and white privilege, and have no moral basis in the Peoples’ Economy.

  42. “Rents in Los Angeles are falling during the pandemic. It’s the same story in San Francisco and New York City.”

    Imagine what would happen to rents in a real pandemic where a third of the population died. See “supply and demand”.

    1. Well, when rents fall to zero because the government say you don’t have to pay this month, it will definitely hurt the average.

    2. several major employees are allowing work from home, indefinitely or for the next year or forever. why pay 4,000 a month for a small apartment in Software Valley when you can move somewhere cheaper?

    1. But it’s your civic honor and duty to make a false binary choice that affects basically the population of the entire world. Also, third parties are a waste of your vote.

      1. Personally, I’m either leaving the Presidential choice blank, or might vote for Jo. It doesn’t matter, anyway, because I don’t live in a swing state.

    2. How is this different from 2 + 2 = 5?
      Are you saying one year is somehow better than another year?
      Racist and sexist and homophobic and Islamophobic and probably anti-vax.

    3. He obviously meant to say WWI. He still would have been wrong. Just not quite as wrong.

      1. It’s not obvious at all. It’s only obvious if you are a Trump apologist.

        Saying “World War Two” instead of “World War One” is more likely to have been a simple mistake of saying the wrong number than the full phrase, “Second World War”.

  43. “ most economists don’t think that the $600 bonus kept many people from returning to work”

    I don’t know what the big picture looks like, but I have at least 4 friends that have turned down offers to return to their jobs because they make more money unemployed than they do while employed. I do not understand the mindset considering that employment offers continual income while unemployment leaves you subject to the whims of Congress… but my generation is full of lazy morons.

    I’ve also had a few friends that run businesses and HR departments that they’ve had employees say “no” when offered their jobs back. No wonder it’s so easy to stand out in the American work place- my competitors are lazy shitheads.

    1. an extra 600 a week is 30K a year. no disincentive at all i suppose.

      1. Incentives are only effective when they support lefty stuff.

    2. You need better friends.

  44. In other entertainment news, Trump’s deregulation efforts continue to move forward. He’s managed to vacate the Paramount Consent Decrees that brought an end to the studio system and the Golden Age of Hollywood. In addition to stopping the flow of good movies and replacing it with a never ending stream of shit from 1950 to 1970 or so, the consent decrees distanced Hollywood productions from catering to the tastes of specific consumers, e.g. hard boiled Noir from the studios that owned theaters on the eastern seaboard and westerns from the studios that were playing in Peoria.

    My understanding is that Disney was never officially subject to the consent decrees, and they only opened a couple of landmark theaters in places like Hollywood to screen their premiers. I don’t know if they’ll rush in and save AMC Theaters or whether other chains might be bought out by the likes of Amazon. This push by the Trump administration to get rid of those rules against vertical integration predate the pandemic by a long shot, but if the theater chain survives the pandemic and avoids the fate of the buggy whip, it may only be because Trump’s deregulation made it possible for production companies to bid on the theater chains’ assets again.

  45. Putin claims that Russia has developed a vaccine for COVID-19.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53735718

    He says his daughter has already been given the vaccine.

    Just because Putin says something, of course, doesn’t mean it’s true.

    I’m not anti-vax, but you’d have to pay me an awful lot of money to get me to willingly subject myself to that vaccine right now.

    1. Russia is trying to influence our pandemic!

      1. I won’t believe it unless they say it on Facebook.

    2. If they have, watch the usual suspects suddenly become just as cautious (not saying that wouldn’t be prudent, just think the hypocrisy will be funny).

      1. What do you mean by ‘suddenly’? I saw articles coming out about how a vaccine couldn’t be trusted at least three weeks ago, right around the time they thought one might be ready by October. This pandemic doesn’t end until we vote the right person in, dammit.

        1. I more meant the people here that give others shit for saying they wouldn’t take a vaccine in the last Bailey article.

    3. I think it was Captain Cook who realized that the solution to scurvy was sauerkraut, which kept forever aboard ship. He couldn’t get his crew to eat it. They’d grumble or throw it overboard when he fed it to them, right up until he made a rule that only the officers were allowed to eat the sauerkraut. Suddenly everybody in the crew wanted some and ate every bit of what they were given, too.

      The propaganda potential by itself is concerning. Putin calls the vaccine “Sputnik-V”, referring to the last time the Russians beat the U.S. to something and crowed about it. I’m not taking a shot in the arm that appears to be mostly about propaganda. If Putin wanted to impress us with a real vaccine, he might start vaccinating his inner circle with it–and try to keep it a secret.

      If the primary benefit of the vaccine is that he gets to tell everyone about it, then that’s not something I want in my arm. How embarrassing for him if the Russian people don’t start clamoring for the vaccine because they think he’s full of shit!

      1. I thought they used limes, which is why they were called Limeys.

        1. I’m sure they did that at some point.

          I don’t know how long it takes for limes to go bad, but sauerkraut doesn’t go bad–even if you’re months at sea.

          . . . okay, now I’m gonna have to go look that up.

          1. “Not all solutions were popular or understood. After Cook ordered sauerkraut served daily at the “Cabbin Table”, the once-reluctant sailors ate it as well and “murmurings” against it ceased. Ironically, on the First Voyage, Joseph Banks observed the value of lemon juice in combating signs of his own scurvy but his journal comments were not published until much later.”

            —-Captain Cook Society

            P.S. The squirrels don’t like my link.

            1. https://www.captaincooksociety.com/home/detail/scurvy-how-a-surgeon-a-mariner-and-a-gentleman-solved-the-greatest-medical-mystery-of-the-age-of-sail-bown-stephen-r-2003

              Cook was awarded a medal for finding the solution to scurvy, but neither he nor the people who awarded him the medal knew how or why sauerkraut, etc. worked to cure or prevent scurvy.

              Oh, and the bit about how his crew would only eat sauerkraut after he limited it to the officer’s table is absolutely legit, and the point I was making about how if you want people to want something, you make it exclusive–rather than tell them they can have it for free–is absolutely legit.

              I’ve seen people who needed USB drives chuck free promotional USB drives. When I worked for a wine merchant, and we wanted to get rid of a slow selling wine, we’d double the price to make it the most expensive bottle in its category. Perceptions of quality get screwy with price, and there’s something about forbidden fruit at the Captain’s table that makes it alluring, too.

              Ducati makes some of the most unreliable motorcycles in the world. I think one of the reasons their customers are willing to put up with the shitty quality of their bikes is because they’re so expensive. They’d be threatening mutiny if Captain Cook didn’t give them some of his shitty sauerkraut.

              1. I’ve seen people who needed USB drives chuck free promotional USB drives.

                You need to wipe those and reformat them to make sure it’s free of malware. Just saying.

              2. “When I worked for a wine merchant, and we wanted to get rid of a slow selling wine, we’d double the price to make it the most expensive bottle in its category.”

                Veblen lives!

                I had no idea you used to work selling wine. Neat. Along with the sauerkraut story.

                See, these comment threads are actually useful and interesting every so often.

                1. IKR?

      2. Limes. That’s why the British sailors (and then Brits in general) were given the nickname “Limey”.

        1. Because British sailors were known as limeys doesn’t mean Captain Cook didn’t successfully prevent scurvy in his crew by feeding them sauerkraut.

          1. I’m not saying he didn’t, I was merely adding to the story. That the British Navy started carrying limes on their vessels to prevent scurvy.

    4. entire world forgot 5000 years of trying to “cure the common cold”

    5. In general, vaccines tend to not have serious side effects, or the serious side effects are extremely rare. For most people the worst possible outcome of a vaccine is that it makes them sore/tired for a few days and then doesn’t provide any immunity. Relatively young, healthy people who catch COVID can expect about the same outcome, only they will have some immunity to catching it again. So why would they every bother? And if you aren’t young and healthy, why would you bother to take the vaccine when the only real way to see if it worked is to expose yourself to what may kill you? I’d feel better if they convinced me that it was based on an existing vaccine for similar coronaviruses, but if it’s brand spanking new, I’ll wait.

      1. I’m a big believer in the idea that when we’re faced with uncertainty, it’s the things that have withstood the most and best scrutiny that are most likely to be true.

        Informative content, which is in inverse proportion to probability, is in direct proportion to testability. Consequently the severity of the test to which a theory can be subjected, and by means of which it is falsified or corroborated, is all-important.

        https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#ProbKnowVeri

        The most and best scrutiny in this case is coming from the profit motive and competition in the biotech industry, as well as their rational fear of juries in class action suits.

        Have you see the way some of these biotech companies have popped on the stock market when news about their COVID-19 vaccines is positive? Markets are another form of rigorous scrutiny.

        Putin’s claims, on the other hand, aren’t especially good scrutiny at all. Hi claims are only good to the extent that they’ve been scrutinized, and part of the problem Putin has is that some of the most rational people in Russian society are afraid to scrutinize his claims because they’re rational people. Putin’s wrath is reportedly sometimes expressed by way of plutonium.

  46. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is reportedly on the cusp of choosing his running mate the person who will actually be president.

    FTFY

  47. >>Fleece gaiters are worse than nothing, according to the study.

    you *will* wear a diaper on your face.

  48. It’s hilarious to me that the rideshare lawsuit was brought by the state and not by one of the “employees”. Really tells you everything you. We’d to know about California.

  49. In a few years when the large American cities run by democrats see huge population and tax receipt drop offs and their downtowns and gentrified areas burned looted and destroyed I wonder if any of those still in power will reflect how their actions caused all of it.

    Nah.

    1. they’ll blame systemic racism. and austerity.

    2. It’s the kulaks fault for being so productive and wealthy in the first place, it set unrealistic expectations for everyone else. Burning it all down was the only way to ensure equality.

  50. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is reportedly on the cusp of choosing his running mate. The New York Times reported yesterday that Biden had interviewed all of the final candidates, and is now in the final process of picking a running mate.

    Biden is eating Tapioca and watching Matlock wile a team of handlers are picking his running-mate.

    1. Which is what every 70yr old person SHOULD be doing. Not pretending to be functional and running ANYTHING!

  51. Would any government contractor pass the ABC test?

    a) free from the control of the entity hiring them

    Huh? If I hire a contractor to remodel my bathroom, that contractor is not free from my control when it comes to my bathroom. I must be misunderstanding this.

    ) be performing work outside the scope of the entity hiring them

    Again, huh? Am I not allowed to do one thing really well and have contracts with different people where I do the same thing? I don’t think most government contractors would pass this.

    c) be “customarily engaged” in the kind of work they are being hired to perform

    So the contractor needs to perform work outside the scope of the entity that hired him, but must also be customarily engaged within the scope. Damn, B and C together sound like they would exclude almost anyone. I can’t see more than one or two government contractors making it through that.

    1. Government contractors will be exempted from this roughly 30 seconds after turning in their expenses under the new system.

  52. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico

    Ahhhhhh, there’s the traditional thirty silver coins…

  53. It’s Kamala Harris for VP. LOL! Worst possible pick of the bunch aside from Karen Bass.

    1. It’s Kamala Harris for VP.

      *facepalm*

    2. Worst possible pick of the bunch aside from Karen Bass.

      From a political-strategy perspective, at least Bass, of all the people being mentioned, would have had a shot at consolidating the woke vote.

      Instead, they looked at Biden’s unwoke baggage and said “let’s pick the person who checks all the same boxes the #defundthepolice crowd already dislikes about Biden.”

    3. Now I’m 100% voting for Trump. Way to go, Democrats!

  54. You have to remember that California politicians and judges know more than you know and sometimes that means taking away your freedoms. If you don’t agree, well they have laws that will put you behind bars. They do believe in diversity though, it’s just that freedom thingy that they have problems with.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.