Political capital is much harder to gain for smaller issues. Law maintenance is a much harder order than terms of service. You can quit youtube anytime you want, you can't quit the FCC, or alcohol prohibition. If you are looking for easy, I suggest a different planet. The only things you get in this life are the things you fight to preserve, no amount of laws or terms of service will keep you safe over time, only vigilance.

Large corporate powers and political capital work by the same basic rules, I am just against a monopoly on the control of that power...I don't think it gets us what we all want. Really, we are arguing about crumbs under the table. All the videos gone from youtube still exist somewhere else. If Google starts acting evil on a wide scale, people can abandon it for some other site (I can name 6 off the top of my head). I would argue the out cropping of lots of different video sites is a safer way to prevent censorship than the FCC, which has a legendary record of censorship in the US...in fact, they are the face of censorship for most everyday Americans.

Once again, I am not proposing perfection, just a good imperfection that has its own very troubling problems. We all choose what failures we are willing to deal with, and for me, the trouble of dealing with a corporate body which I can choose not to partake in is a more agreeable situation (do you have a life after google solution, I do, I have a life after windows as well). I do concede a great threat by those who own nearly everything, undermining that ability to have options, lucky for us, with the internet we don't have to worry about that as much (the internet becomes unfathomable larger everyday).

TL;DR It isn't the ends I am against, it is the means.


</rant>
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

Yeah, we should entrust the web and free speech to corporations. Can't see any problems with that....

One you can hold directly accountable, one you have to hold accountable through a myriad of hoops and ladders...I choose the former. Look at what Oprah did to the meat industry back in the day...the consumer wand is a powerful thing. Neither way is perfect, but those looking for perfection need to deal with a different animal.

Right, because raising a popular movement against billion-dollar corporations any time they engage in censorship is much simpler than just maintaining a law on the books that says "communications companies can't limit people's free speech" and enforcing it...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

Yeah, we should entrust the web and free speech to corporations. Can't see any problems with that....

One you can hold directly accountable, one you have to hold accountable through a myriad of hoops and ladders...I choose the former. Look at what Oprah did to the meat industry back in the day...the consumer wand is a powerful thing. Neither way is perfect, but those looking for perfection need to deal with a different animal.


Right, because raising a popular movement against billion-dollar corporations any time they engage in censorship is much simpler than just maintaining a law on the books that says "communications companies can't limit people's free speech" and enforcing it...

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

Yeah, we should entrust the web and free speech to corporations. Can't see any problems with that....


One you can hold directly accountable, one you have to hold accountable through a myriad of hoops and ladders...I choose the former. Look at what Oprah did to the meat industry back in the day...the consumer wand is a powerful thing. Neither way is perfect, but those looking for perfection need to deal with a different animal.

>> ^marinara:

I'm really tired of youtube. This is why we need net-neutrality. So we can just leave youtube behind.
And this is happening more and more, literally 2 days ago, they took down a JFK conspiracy video. supposedly due to violent content (a certain gunshot)
really this is a huge problem.
It only takes a few takedowns... to shift the expectations of people. People will start editing what they say, just so there is no chance of being taken down.


FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'super bad brad, apollo, nerd, soul, kareoke' to 'super bad brad, apollo, nerd, soul, kareoke, brad prowly' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'kickass, soul, voice, singer, homeless, NYC, Lou Rawls' to 'kickass, soul, voice, singer, homeless, NYC, Lou Rawls, brad prowly' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'NYC, street, soul, concert, homeless, some people, love' to 'NYC, street, soul, concert, homeless, some people, love, brad prowly' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'super bad brad, marvin gaye, soul' to 'super bad brad, marvin gaye, soul, brad prowly' - edited by xxovercastxx

http://www.afscme.org/news/publications/privatization/pdf/AFSCME-Report_Making-A-Killing.pdf

Every year, America’s largest private prison companies – The GEO Group, Inc., Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA), and the Management & Training Corporation (MTC)—pour
hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of governors, state legislators, and judges, in the hopes
of advancing their political agenda—establishing more private prisons and reducing the number of public
ones. Despite significantly higher rates of inmate-on-guard assault, violence, and escapes in broad daylight
in private prisons than in public,[1] these companies’ strategy of pay-to-play has proven successful. A state
think tank in Ohio recently documented a 48 percent increase in private prison inmates between the year
2000 and 2009—leading almost 8 percent of incarcerated Americans to be housed in private prisons by the
end of the decade.[2]

Those who oppose prison privatization make the case that the industry has the incentive and the wherewithal to extend the amount of time convicts will remain in prison, and that this presents a threat to justice. The industry, they say, can extend sentences in two ways. First, it has thrown its influence, through lobbying and campaign contributions, behind “tougher” laws such as "three strikes", mandatory minimum sentencing, and "truth in sentencing" that increase the duration of sentences. The conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been extremely active in advocating truth-in-sentencing and three strikes policies throughout the United States. This organization is heavily funded by the corrections industry, and indeed ALEC's Criminal Justice Task Force is co-chaired by Brad Wiggins, a former director of business development for the Corrections Corporation of America (Bender, 2000). The strength of these kinds of political influence, opponents fear, will only increase as the industry grows. As one observer notes, corrections corporations have "paid handsomely to play the public policy game, and will likely do so again"(O'Connell, 2002).

The second way opponents of privatization worry that private firms will distort the administration of justice is by exerting undue influence on parole hearings. Opponents argue that since prison firms are generally paid per prisoner per day, they have an incentive to extend inmate stays as long as possible, and so are liable to reduce prisoner’s chances for parole or good time off by exaggerating or fabricating disciplinary infractions (DiIulio, 1990).

Industry supporters point out in response to these concerns that industry campaign contributions are smaller than those made by public sector unions ( Moore, 1998). There is no evidence, they say, of private prison officials manipulating parole decisions.

I think most people here would know this, but Brad Pitt's character in Snatch was already a play on this. After hearing about the complaints over Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, writer/director Guy Ritchie decided to make a character that even the film characters wouldn't understand.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^jmzero:
I will note that Arnold was right - having nice abs is 5% having nice abs and 95% not having a bunch of fat over them. Get back on the carrots, Zach.

spot on


Forshizzle look at Brad Pitt in Fight Club he's skinny as can be I could put my hands around his waist, and just dance the night away... *stares longingly out the window*

QT is the most awkward big name director. There is a Brad Pitt + Quentin Tarantino interview on the Inglourious Basterds blu-ray which I watched last night (it turns out IB is one of those movies that gets better with repeated viewings). In the interview it's clear that Pitt finds Tarantino's energy irritating and draining. Apserger's + coke habit = very irritating to stoic potheads.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Brad Pitt, Erasurehead' to 'Brad Pitt, Eraserhead' - edited by shuac

>> ^BoneRemake:

dead


Fixed and thanks.