Bryan

The reason Facebook has lost these cases is because they over-reached by claiming perpetual rights. If they had specified a set period of time after which they expired, they likely would have been OK.

It's routinely shot down by the courts. Facebook has been forced to allow users for outright delete their entire accounts in one step.

You shouldn't shoot your mouth off about things you know nothing about. You absolutely do not own anyone's content here. There is nothing that you can put in the terms of service or the rules of the forum that can change that. Legally is it NOT yours. I don't have a reason to want to remove my content, but some people might have very good reasons for it. I guarantee you if anyone decided to get a lawyer involved, you would lose. Again, even Facebook and Twitter cannot assert that right, even though it's in the terms of service. You can edit and delete any and all of your content there, because they have smart lawyers that are protecting their owners from themselves.

You can save your content, you can republish it, and you absolutely can delete it too. Ever read Facebook or Twitter's claims to the right of publication of your posts? Far more onerous than Greg's. But guess what, you can still delete any any all content as much as you want whenever you want.

I have the right to revoke your license at any time, it's my content. Your right does not extend beyond publishing the conversation at the time that it happens, you do not have perpetual license to it.

The problem is, ISIS has released footage of kids as young as 4 being trained to be assassins. These little kids are actually shooting and beheading real people. I'm not going to post it here, it's really graphic. If they think they have a reason for extra caution for the parents, then they have legitimate reason for extra caution with the kids.

Yeah. My reaction depends on what the actual question is. Sure, I'm happy that FPTP is staying. What I'm not happy about is that people voted for Trudeau based on promises that were obviously false when he was making them. But I'm also somewhat resolute in that I already knew that Liberals virtually never keep any of their promises. At the risk of conflating US and Canadian politics (and instigating thread drift along the way), I also think that Trudeau's typical promise breaking behaviour only further emphasizes how remarkable President Trump is -- no one expected a politician that actually went about doing specifically what he promised to do. That's not how politicians behave on either end of the political spectrum or on either side of the border. It's quite jarring.

Even income trust was because the situation changed substantially. Large corporations were using them as a loophole to declare themselves as income trusts to avoid paying taxes. When the conditions change, so must the solutions. In all seriousness, it's difficult to find another Canadian politician whose record of doing what he said he would is as strong as Harper's was.

No. USERS need to be able to edit posts at any time. Moderators need to be severely restricted as to when and why they would intervene.

Nothing. It's none of your business whatsoever if they choose to do that.

This is false. The content does not belong to you, it belongs to the people who wrote it. I can delete or edit all of the content that I want to on any and all other forums and social media site that I go to. Privacy concerns might come up down the line that would make removing a person's online posts a neccessity, and it is important that it remains possible for the user to do that. I have no reason to delete my posts here, but I will not be participating in a forum that thinks they own my content.

Those are mutually exclusive ideologies. The latter exposes that the person is just pretending to be the former. Which is a real concern.

Those are two different questions. One is if the reason is justified, the other is if a reason is required. The answer to both questions can be no and not be a contradiction.

That's a ridiculous assertion. There is no correlation whatsoever between verifiable data and things that people have personal knowledge of.

Six. Out of over 500 companies.

Yes, like a true Liberal, his answer is dependant on his audience.

He'll take the question, he'll just refuse to answer it in english.

Should be, but pretty much every place that has one sees it plant its flag decidedly on the left side of centre. In some ways, I almost wonder if it's a good idea for a state broadcaster to be reporting on politics at all. The guy you expose today could be your boss tomorrow, not a great idea to give people incentive to cut your budget or shut you down.

If it were just an opinion, you might have a point. Relying on measured data assumes that these incidents are actually recorded as such by the government. That's one of the biggest stresses that the people doing the investigations have to deal with. Politics interferes with the process, and charges are rarely ever filed regardless of the extent of the fraud. More often than not, nothing at all happens to the people who are caught red handed.

Finding them daily is rampant. Only an idiot believes it's anywhere near that low. edit: that's too strong, my apologies. What I should say is you are arguing from a position of profound ignorance.

I said I know them personally, I didn't say I read it somewhere.

I know the people who are catching the fraudsters -- they are BUSY. Blatant outright fraud is rampant.

Lots of absolute trash gets published, as long as it supports what the reviewers have decided in advance that they are looking for.

For sure. Social services here in Manitoba routinely catches welfare fraud because people post the evidence online for the investigators to see. Some of them post so much that you can collect far more than what you'd get if you spend the time and money on physical surveillance.

The only thing that could possibly stop O'Leary is him being seen as not conservative enough by the party's base.