mPony

In Canada in the 1980’s there was a short TV commercial about media literacy portrayed as a nature documentary, about the endangered Canadian House Hippo. After 15 seconds the commercial pauses and a voice asks if you actually believed what you were seeing, encouraging viewers to think critically about what they saw on TV.

These days the closest thing to that is snopes.com , and people have to actively seek that out. Without the House Hippo it is us who are endangered.

Microsoft submitted video evidence during their Antitrust trial in the late 90’s that had been edited together, but was being presented as unedited. i.e. they tried to pull the wool over the DOJ’s eyes, because why not? https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-on-trial-ms-videotape-not-what-it-seemed/

They included IE4 in Win98 - that was seen as anticompetitive. Compare that to everything they do today. Or everything Apple does today (like, literally everything). It’s shocking that something like including IE with win98 was worth pursuing, but yet everything since then was just how big business does big business.

Don’t we all.

Well put. They can always use “blame the client” as a way out. I’ve seen fitness coaches, nutritionists, and horse trainers speak the same kind of language.

every time they say it’s to “protect the children” or “protect freedom” it is invariably neither.

well, technically, nobody’s talking.

It’s horribly disrespectful of your audience to think they would accept such a garbage imitation.

I guess we’ll have to raise an entire generation on nothing but garbage so they won’t know any better.

They mostly all look like that one girl from that show, whatever it was.

FTA

By usurping your right to decide who fixes your phone, Apple gets to decide whether you can fix it, or whether you must repair it.

Can someone tell Cory that he needs to edit this sentence? One of you knows someone who knows him, certainly. (I probably do too, I just don’t know who.)

he’s always Tryin’ to play me out like as if my name was Sega

FTA

Mr. Giuliani, insisting that he still had “legal defenses” in the case, said that he continued to believe his accusations about Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss were “constitutionally protected” under the First Amendment. He also refused to acknowledge that his statements had caused the women any damage — a key element required to collect a judgment in a defamation case.

It’s such obvious bullshit to claim First Amendment protection for slander. His only path to victory is a GOP win and a pardon.

America, please do the right thing.

I bet they call the cat “Lypse” for short.