But what happens when it crashes? This is a story of technical glitches that ruin your viewing experience.

There’s a lot of frustration among users online, with login issues, buffering, and video playback problems. So, let’s look at these disruptions, break them down, and uncover the truth behind the glitches. 

Background of Paramount Plus

Let’s look at the bigger picture before we get into Paramount Plus glitches. Paramount Plus, launched in March 2021, has risen quickly among streaming giants like Netflix and Disney. It’s backed by Paramount Global, with CBS, Comedy Central, MTV, and Paramount Pictures content.

Here’s what makes Paramount Plus work:

• A Content Universe for Every Fan: Paramount Plus has everything you need with a huge library of TV shows, movies, and documentaries.
• Original Gems: Exclusive series like Star Trek: Picard and The Offer have earned a lot of praise. This shows Paramount Plus’s commitment to fresh, high-quality content.
• Sports Galore: Good news for sports fans! It’s got live NFL games, UEFA Champions League matches, and exclusive coverage of major sporting events.
• Affordable Access: Paramount Plus offers a good deal compared to competitors with two-tiered subscription plans. This makes it a budget-friendly choice for many viewers.

Rising Issues

The promise of smooth streaming falls apart when technical difficulties take over Paramount Plus. Here are the specific issues causing users frustration:

1. Login Issues

Imagine trying to watch Star Trek but not being able to log in. Users have reported persistent login errors. 

This makes their accounts inaccessible and precious streaming hours are wasted.

2. Buffering

Picture this: you’re just moments away from watching Captain Picard’s triumphant return. But suddenly, the screen freezes. Buffering issues are a constant problem. 

All you get out of this is frustration and nothing else.

3. Playback Failures

Just when the movie plot twist hits its peak, the entire app crashes. Then you’re left with a blank screen and a feeling of disappointment. 

We’re seeing a lot more of these sudden failures.

4. Content Dilemmas

Suppose you’re searching for a specific Frasier episode. Then you find out that it is missing and replaced by an unknown error message. 

This already glitchy experience is made worse by content availability issues and missing episodes.

These are just a few examples of Paramount Plus’ technical issues.

However, it’s not all doom and gloom. We can fix these glitches by understanding their nature and impact. Stay tuned as we dig deeper into the technical issues and look at possible fixes.

Potential Fixes for Paramount Plus Glitches

Paramount Plus is ultimately responsible for fixing technical issues disrupting your streaming experience. However, there are a few things you can try from your end for a potential fix:

1. Device Optimization

• Update your streaming device: Streaming devices like Amazon Fire Stick work much better when it’s updated. And a lot of times, we wouldn’t be aware of useful Fire Stick hacks and tricks that are available for free on the Internet. These little hacks can go a long way in overcoming the glitches when streaming Paramount Plus on Firestick devices.
• Close unnecessary background apps: Running too many apps in the background can eat up your resources. This could potentially affect streaming performance.
• Clear app cache and data (where applicable): Sometimes clearing the Paramount Plus cache and data fixes minor glitches. This option is usually available in your device’s settings menu under “Applications“.

2. Network Tweaks

• Restart your router and modem: This simple step can sometimes improve your internet connection and resolve connectivity issues.
• Change DNS servers: Public DNS servers like Google Public DNS or OpenDNS could offer a stable and faster connection than your ISP’s default DNS.

3. Troubleshooting Assistance:

• Run a speed test: Check your internet speed to see if it meets the minimum requirements for smooth streaming. Paramount Plus suggests at least 5 Mbps for standard quality and 25 Mbps for 4K HDR.
• Report the issue to Paramount Plus: Contacting Paramount Plus support directly allows them to collect specific information about your issue. This will potentially let them identify patterns across their user base.
• Share your experience online: You can raise awareness and find out more about other users experiencing similar problems by posting about them on social media.

Remember, these are just potential fixes. Their effectiveness may vary depending on the specific issue you’re facing. However, you can potentially improve your streaming experience by taking these steps. 

Furthermore, you can help Paramount Plus diagnose and fix broader technical issues by providing valuable data.

The Bottom Line:

The current Paramount Plus disruptions might be temporary. But they’re a lesson to learn. 

So, it’s important to invest in a reliable and transparent streaming experience. This is the only way they can stay competitive.

The post Paramount Plus Faces Service Disruption: The Inside Scoop on Technical Issues Unveiled! appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Musk as well made good on a promise to bring about more transparency to Twitter. He gave journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss access to all of the internal communications regarding the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The day before the bombshell report by Matt Taibbi, I tweeted a reply to Elon Musk requesting my previous suspended account, as well as a few friends who have been suspended for dubious reasons to have our accounts reinstated. This included my prior account Guy Squiggs, as well as Joshua Smith, the Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party.

Taibbi’s report the following day was as shocking as it was entertaining. Elon Musk has his own spin on Occam’s Razor, the law stating that the simplest explanation is the most likely. Elon’s Razor, on the other hand, states that the most entertaining outcome is the most likely. Elon’s Razor proved accurate, as tweet #8 in Taibbi’s 36 tweet long report especially stood out to me. I, Guy Squiggs, was in that tweet. Of course I was.

In this tweet the world saw my previous account being “requested for review” by the Biden Campaign, and then being “handled.” Musk himself responded to this particular tweet asking, “If this isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, what is?” Then in the next tweet we learned that the same thing had happened to actor James Woods. He appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show vowing to file a lawsuit, and I will be closely paying attention.

Large Twitter accounts such as Scott Presler and Libs of TikTok were sharing screenshots of my old account which has been permanently suspended for about two years now. This disclosure for Taibbi might possibly be providing context for that suspension.

This all began on October 14th 2020, when New York Post published a bombshell exposé revealing emails recovered on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. Both Twitter and Facebook heavily throttled the story and prevented it from being spread, and Twitter took the extraordinary step of locking New York Post from its Twitter account. 

Twitter cited a “hacked materials” policy, but Taibbi revealed that Twitter executives didn’t believe that reason would hold up. The materials published were no longer the property of Hunter Biden, so his consent is no longer needed. They were the property of the repair shop he abandoned the laptop at, whose owner willfully turned over this material.

Following the censorship of New York Post, with the corporate mainstream media claiming the story was Russian disinformation, I set out looking for leaks of this material. Many photos from the laptop were leaked on Parler, where I spent an unfortunate amount of time looking at Hunter Biden’s nudes so you don’t have to. One photo however really alarmed me, which I censored and shared to Twitter. This tweet can be viewed in its original integrity in the archives on wayback, despite the account being suspended.

The photo, like many released on Parler, showed Hunter exposing himself (which was censored prior to being posted on Twitter). Behind Hunter however was a balcony where a girl was sitting. She appeared to be young, but the question was how young? That was the question, and that was the tweet’s entire purpose. This was the tweet that the Biden campaign requested to be removed. It’s also still a question I think is worth an answer.

While I have always wanted my old account back, now I heavily desire its return as it is part of a profound moment in history. That account vindicates everything conservatives believed was happening against them, but only up until now could be proven. I understand that the mass reinstatement of accounts is a work in progress, but I would humbly beg Twitter to reinstate the accounts listed in my pinned tweet. I also will eagerly be paying attention to any steps James Woods takes.

The post HANDLED: Guy Squiggs Reacts to Being Censored on Twitter appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

A recent (and substantial) donation made to the Canadian Trucker GoFundMe seems to have Musk’s fingerprints on it. The donation came from the name “www.liar.com” (which redirects to Justin Trudeau’s Wikipedia Page) for the amount of $42,069. 

Musk has had an affinity for pairing the numbers 420 and 69 together, previously slashing the price of the Tesla Model S to $69,420. Musk’s birthday is on June 28th, exactly 69 days after 4/20. 

However the donation no longer appears on the GoFundMe campaign since GoFundMe decided to freeze the campaign funds, and Canadian officials are attempting to have those funds turned over to the government instead of the truckers. Whoever the donor was apparently had the donation refunded in light of those developments. 

Musk has also been critical of the Biden Administration for refusing to acknowledge Tesla as an EV Leader. Biden has instead lavished praise on Ford and GM for being the EV Leaders, who have developed and sold far fewer electric vehicles than Tesla. Musk praised journalist Sara Eisen, who pressed Brian Deese, White House Director of the Economic Council, on their refusal to say the word “Tesla.”

A petition has also been circulating to compel the Biden Administration to acknowledge Tesla.

While online petitions are popular, realistically they achieve little or nothing. The Tesla community, much like Musk himself, value results.

Tesla owners appear to be brewing a plan to force the Tesla name on the Administration by making it unavoidable. This plan is to flood DC streets with an army of Tesla vehicles until Biden can say the word “Tesla.” While this appears to be in the beginning stages, many Tesla owners appear to be supportive. Some have floated the date 4/20 for DC arrival.

The post Is A Tesla Convoy Army Heading To DC? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Early in the day on Saturday, Kyle Rittenhouse favorited an image of a topless woman on Twitter. As Twitter will post tweets you favorite in the feeds of your followers, suddenly this image began to display in the feeds of Kyle’s followers, showing that he favorited it.

Conservative host Lauren Chen sent a general tweet reminding people how Twitter functions.

It’s been a little while since Kyle has been on social media, as all the platforms purged him following the incident in Kenosha where he shot 3 people in self defense. Not only did Social Media platforms like Twitter and Facebook remove Kyle, but they removed anyone who said “Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.”

Only after Kyle’s acquittal was he allowed to open new accounts. It’s pretty easy to forget some of the details pertaining to what activity is visible when you’ve been off the platform for an extended period. Twitter is also unique in that it is a social media platform that openly allows nudity and pornography.

Sure, something like this can be embarrassing… But really, who cares? 18 year olds are going to be 18 year olds.

This is the second time that Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.

The post Kyle Rittenhouse Caught Browsing Porn on Twitter? So What. appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Dennis decided to expand his horizons when a popular account called Ghislaine Maxwell Trial Tracker was removed from Twitter. 

As Dennis changes his profile and Twitter handle often depending on who he is parodying, the article will use screenshots of the tweets rather than embedded tweets to maintain continuity. This also prevents us from linking to Dennis’ Twitter because in the course of a week that link will likely no longer work when he updates his handle next.

We will embed one single tweet from a profile picture update that will follow whatever he changes his handle to next.

Dennis renamed his account Maxwell Trial Tracker with the handle @TrialTrakMaxwel. However, as customary for Dennis, he does not change his bio to match the parody. This allows anyone who is observant to catch on, yet Dennis’ followers grew from 2,000 to nearly 17,000 in the course of a day.

Dennis’ bio reads:

Pounder of twinks, plower of fairies, crusher of bottoms, first of his name, King of the Gays! Reformed Sodomite! Pronouns: Fuck/You, Parody

Dennis’ Mona Lisa on this Maxwell Trial Tracker account was a tweet claiming that Bill Clinton had been served a subpoena and would be testifying in the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial. This was retweeted and quote tweeted a few thousand times. 

This also prompted some to author their own tweets with this claim, one of which was retweeted by Libertarian Podcaster Reed Coverdale, whom Dennis had previously parodied under the handle @ReeeCoverdale.

Once Dennis decided this gig was up, he changed his handle and name again and tweeted to all his new followers, calling them stupid. 

At the time of this writing, Dennis has so far lost 600 of his new followers. 

The post Libertarian Troll Fools Twitter With Fake Maxwell Trial Updates appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Musk went on to mock those in attendance by stating any Chief position, like CEO or CFO is a made up position. He stated that the only positions that matter when filing for a corporation are the titles of President, Secretary and Treasurer.

Elon also stated in the interview that the Federal Budget Deficit is “insane” and called for President Biden’s Build Back Better Plan to be “deleted.”

But the real highlight came when Elon stated that the government allocates capital very poorly, and capital allocation should be done by private people who can do it properly. He then described the government as a corporation with a monopoly on violence, a phrase that is popular with libertarian thinkers.

While in past years Elon Musk has described himself on Twitter as having socialist tendencies, it appears he’s had a degree of reconsideration. Especially considering socialism is heavily reliant on this monopoly of violence.

This shift in thinking was very noticeable during an exchange Elon Musk had on Twitter with David Beasely, the Executive Director of the UN’s World Food Programme. 

After claims that $6 billion of Elon’s money would solve world hunger were made by CNN, Researcher David Eli inquired why the UN couldn’t solve world hunger last year when it had amassed more than $6 billion. Elon replied that if the UN could prove how $6 billion could solve world hunger, and be transparent about how funds were used, that he would immediately sell $6 billion worth of stock and donate it.

David Beasely with the World Food Programme chimed in stating that CNN’s claim was not accurate (no surprise there), but essentially stated “it’s a start” while seemingly not accepting Elon’s condition of transparency and accountability.

Elon then replied “What happened here?” and linked an article about UN Peacekeepers forcing children in impoverished countries to perform sex acts on them for food.

Apparently government programs are only not very good at resource allocation, but they’re also incredibly sinister about it.

Watch the entire interview with Wall Street Journal below.

The post Elon Musk: “Government Is A Corporation With A Monopoly On Violence” appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

No one seems to know for sure what this means, but libertarians of all backgrounds are tweeting their support of the company’s CEO tweeting a link to the foundational book of one of the major schools of thought in Libertarianism.

Jack’s tweet has garnered approval from some prominent named Libertarian individuals and organizations, including former Congressman Justin Amash, 2020 LP vice-presidential candidate Spike Cohen, the Libertarian Party’s Mises Caucus, 2022 GA LP gubernatorial candidate Shane Hazel and many official accounts for several state branches of the Libertarian Party.

Some members of the liberty community joined in the thread to call for the Twitter CEO to cease his censorship of the liberty movement online and create a space that honors the spirit of the first amendment and the American tradition of free speech. 

The LP Mises Caucus even posted a screenshot of #Rothbard trending on Twitter nearly three hours after Jack tweeted out the link to a free online copy of “Anatomy of the State” published on Mises.org.

 Is the CEO of one the largest tech giants on the yellow brick road of libertarianism to AnCapistan? Only time will tell, but one thing is sure—this single act promoted the ideas of liberty, peace, and free markets—and that’s something worth celebrating.

The post Twitter CEO Rocks Libertarian Twitter With Mysterious Rothbard Tweet appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

At a blistering 2021 speed, the screen shifts from archaic interfaces to modern emojis without giving as much as a second to focus before clearing the display for text reading “It’s been 25 years since comprehensive internet regulations were passed. It’s time for an update.” It is part of Facebook’s pro-regulatory advertisement push entitled, “Born in ’96” part of the larger “It’s Time” campaign.

As advertisements go, this one is remarkably effective, if a little overbearing. Would you expect anything less from the king of every corner in the advertising market?

The ecosystem created for the internet in ‘96 by the Communications Decency Act (CDA) has clearly not impeded Facebook’s success. After being created in 2004, Facebook was established in a post-CDA world and has played a leading role in establishing that world’s bounds. Nevertheless, the company’s anxiety over ambiguities in the ancient digital legislation is understandable.

Rather than letting Facebook’s executives design the social media market of the future, what if there were free competition? Not the kind of competition that Twitter and even Parler provide Facebook, rather, a type of decentralized competition that challenges the structure that the Silicon Valley giants are built on. In other words, how about a polycentric organization of competition that makes the CDA obsolete and breaks up vertical monopolies on user-generated content and use data? Thanks to an unexpected source, that competition may not be far away.

To Moderate or Not to Moderate is NOT the Question

Chances are, if you are made uneasy by a social media giant lobbying to change the rules that govern it and its competitors, that dubious feeling may come from a general distrust of Facebook itself. Facebook may or may not have lost your trust after Russia used the platform to target Americans with divisive advertisements during the 2016 election, or after CEO Mark Zuckerberg was summoned to Congress to testify in 2018 about the site’s alleged internal content moderation bias against conservatives. Even without negative associations, however, new regulations on established markets create barriers to entry and disincentivize competition. In this case, new regulations would mandate that social media companies practice internal content moderation—otherwise simply known as moderation—something that has strained Facebook’s abilities up until recently.

At the root of Facebook’s legal issues is the CDA. Although originally intended to determine what content was suitable for television, the CDA became one of the most foundational regulations for the burgeoning internet. Insofar as the internet is concerned, the CDA mandates that a site may not publish certain indecent, and often independently criminal, content. It also delegates the enforcement of these rules to a regulatory agency, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), instead of leaving the justice system to sort out victims and perpetrators. Notably, the CDA also creates a distinction between “publishers,” standard websites that curate or create content, and “platforms” like social media sites that allow anyone to post and merely aggregate and serve content to consumers.

Distorting the justice system by inserting executive agencies between victim and perpetrator creates a topsy-turvy system. As it stands, proving the facilitatory guilt on the part of a social media company is far easier than proving that any crime outside of the scope of the CDA had been committed in the first place.

Under the CDA, there are two systems of online content production. Publishers are obligated to internally moderate content such that it remains within the bounds of what the law considers acceptable speech. On the other hand, platforms are not held to this standard and are, by the nature of the distinction, barred from behaving as publishers. Although this clause, better known simply as “section 230,” has been touted by many as the saving grace of the CDA from the perspective of free speech, it is also the wedge that causes Facebook to take flack from both the left and right.

Facebook has been scrutinized for not moderating content strictly enough in 2016 and for being too politically restrictive ever since. New regulations would certainly clear up Facebook’s role, especially if Facebook’s on-staff legal team would have a say in the verbiage of any proposed bill, which it likely would. Either way, moderation of user-generated media, and therefore free speech online, will either be centralized under a federal agency or only distributed between a few massive companies which themselves have nothing to do with content production.

The free market provided several alternatives to Facebook and Twitter but few gained traction in the face of such established competitors and steep regulatory obligations. One of these start-ups, Parler, managed to gain a healthy following when President Donald Trump was controversially removed from almost every other online platform following the storming of the Capitol on Jan 6. After gaining millions of users overnight, Parler’s web-hosting service, a subsidiary of Amazon, decided to sever ties with the company over its moderation policy. This effectively moderated the entire website off of the internet by refusing to do business with them.

Many were attracted to Parler’s moderation policies, or lack thereof, and, had it not been shut down, the site would have posed a competitive threat for a portion of Facebook’s disaffected user base. Although providing a place for truly unfettered conversation, Parler segmented conversation and would never be a comfortable place for the majority of social media users who prefer some community standards beyond the legal bare minimum to be enforced.

Besides, having a second, slightly edgier public square just outside the first is not a substitution for effective public discourse. The French third estate’s self-separation from the estates general did not, after all, create a more healthy political dialogue for the French people during the beginning of the French Revolution.

Parler was shuttered for two months while the site’s founders procured alternative web hosting services. Although currently functional, Parler’s existence is not a long-term competitive solution to the problem of legally obligatory moderation because it frames moderation, in and of itself, as a bad thing. The same could be said for President Donald Trump’s new media outlet if it is ever opened up to public contribution.

Moderation, when done offline, is a daily practice for most. Whether by choosing the members of your inner circle or choosing to only have two slices of pizza, people self-moderate their lives all the time. Centrally planned moderation, however, is called prohibition and often causes more harm than good.

Enter the Decentralized Social Media (DSM) model, a polycentric model of online interaction recently proposed on Medium by Ross Ulbricht, the currently imprisoned founder of Silk Road, an infamous illicit online marketplace that jump-started the popularity of Bitcoin in the early 2000s.

The Innovation of Decentralized Social Media

Moderation of something as big as social media is incredibly difficult and would take a massive amount of manpower if done entirely manually. Some of Facebook’s most closely guarded secrets determine the algorithms the company has developed for use in ad targeting and to facilitate moderation. The CDA both disallows this moderation and requires it, depending on which side of Section 230 a site falls on.

To oversimplify, Ulbricht’s DSM model would remove those automatic and manual moderation tools from under the hood of a social media’s servers and place those same processes in the device of the social media user under the control of separate companies that stand to profit from providing moderation and aggregation services at the discretion of the device owner. Users could access any or all of the web’s available social media content feeds at once and only be fed content within their own acceptable parameters while retaining ownership of their user data. All of this would be done through the operant function of Bitcoin, the encrypted blockchain.

In practice, the seemingly small distinction between where these algorithms are processed and who owns those functions resolves several of the questions raised and created by the CDA without having to create or pass any new laws.

Where the CDA consolidates and centralizes the responsibility for moderation under the content aggregator’s purview, start-up companies following Ulbricht’s model would compete to moderate and aggregate both user content and advertisements from social media platforms, thereby creating a market where there previously was only mandate.

Users would simply open an app wherein social media content is centralized. Users could pick and choose moderation and aggregation providers to reward with a portion of the advertisement revenue that their engagement latently generates and freely switch between providers.

Rather than having aggregation and moderation be centralized by legal obligation to a few social media companies, levels of moderation, advertisement service, and content prioritization would all be separate overlapping markets which independently compete to provide superior service and control for negative externalities.

Algorithmic moderation is a powerful tool that, along with manual moderation, can create comfortable digital environments. If moderation and aggregation were divorced from the social media platform and made a competitive marketplace, users would be free to use whatever network or combination of networks that they preferred and have the content they are served moderated however they see fit. If users could be in control of the moderation they facilitate and are subject to, the arrangement would be considerably more consensual. Social media companies under a decentralized model would not be held responsible for users misusing their digital infrastructure as content regulation would be the responsibility of the client-side moderation algorithm and the companies that compete to provide those services most effectively. If a user was ever dissatisfied with the moderation they were provided those would have market remedies.

Should someone use social media as a means to harass or threaten another, there would be no intermediate party at fault, freeing the judicial system to bring justice to guilty and affected parties alike.

Side-effects may include

Besides sidestepping the CDA’s ineffectual regulations, a DSM would protect the privacy of users by encrypting the user generated data used by moderation algorithms and keeping a function of that unique data as the user’s encryption key or proof of identity.

The value of the advertising market and the size of Facebook’s share of it are both due to the incredible amount of data that Google, Facebook, and other companies collect on every person who uses their services. This information is the company’s to sell, use to target ads, or train algorithms with. Under a DSM model, that information would be yours to sell and distribute among service providers.

The value of this information is worth much more than the emotional value of privacy. Companies like Facebook make much of their money in one way or another from the accuracy and scope of their user data collection. If that information were to become yours by using a DSM, so too would the money it generates.

As it stands, Facebook and Google data-mine users in exchange for a service. Were they to have to adapt to a DSM model, companies like this would need to shift to more traditional models where payment is offered directly for a service rendered. Ulbricht’s model would allow businesses to accommodate liquid payment between service providers like web-hosts or advertisers and the users so that the app constantly allows users to be in control of how much of their data they would like to share and how much usability they want to pay for by receiving ads.

Innovation always trumps regulation

Rather than offering prescription for what ails the social media marketplace, Ulbricht’s paper is a prediction from a prison cell. The unstoppable march of innovation is sure to further segment the digital marketplace for social programs into intricately specialized niches. The distributed social media model is merely a description of how those businesses and technologies would need to operate.

Because Ulbricht was not granted the clemency from the Trump administration that he so hoped for, the infamous programmer will not be the one to found the moderation or content aggregation start-ups that he describes. Public figures such as Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, and Tim Pool have all claimed to be creating platforms that in some way aggregate social media, beginning the process of decentralizing—or polycentrizing—the social media market. It remains to be seen if these or any start-ups will truly realize Ulbricht’s ideas, but if the CDA is not soon updated, it will likely be circumvented.

Just as 3D printers have shown several gun laws to be archaic, if not entirely obsolete, the best way to counter a bad set of laws or regulations is to create a technology or idea that renders it pointless. Ulbricht may not be the one to lead the charge, but his simple Medium post certainly opened a door.

Gavin Hanson (born in ’96) is the Editor-in-Chief of Catalyst

Published with permission from Catalyst. Read the original article here.

The post Regulation, Moderation, and Social Media Decentralization appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Mary Margaret Olohan on April 22, 2021

• Twitter is refusing to address whether a tweet by Los Angeles Lakers star LeBron James violated the platform’s terms of service.
• “YOU’RE NEXT,” James tweeted to his millions of followers with the hashtag #ACCOUNTABILITY. He has since deleted the tweet.
• Twitter’s policy warns that users may “not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm.” 

Twitter is refusing to address whether a tweet by Los Angeles Lakers star LeBron James violated the platform’s terms of service.

James tweeted, then deleted, a picture Wednesday of Ohio police officer Nicholas Reardon who shot 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant as she attempted to stab another girl, body cam footage showed.

“YOU’RE NEXT,” James tweeted to his millions of followers with the hashtag #ACCOUNTABILITY. He has since deleted the tweet.

The Daily Caller News Foundation began asking Twitter whether the tweet violated the platform’s terms of service around 4:20 p.m. Wednesday. Twitter did not respond to the DCNF’s request before James deleted the tweet around 4:45 p.m. Wednesday.

Twitter’s policy warns that users may “not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so.” “This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm.”

Twitter spokesman Trenton Kennedy told the DCNF Thursday morning that “our teams do not evaluate Tweets that have been removed.”

Kennedy did not return a further request for comment from the DCNF noting that the tweet was up for over an hour and garnered tens of thousands of likes and retweets. James has almost 50,00,000 followers.

The social media platform locked the New York Post out of its account in October after it published a report on alleged emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop that allegedly showed Hunter and his father, president-elect Joe Biden, met with an executive from the Ukrainian gas company Burisma in 2015.

Twitter also censored the story on its platform, prevented users from tweeting or sending the link, and locked the accounts of a number of high-profile Twitter users, such as former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who attempted to post the link.

The social media platform also repeatedly censored former President Donald Trump’s tweets during the 2020 presidential election with the caption: “Some or all of the content shared in this Tweet is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process.”

Twitter’s silence comes amid massive media misinformation on 16-year-old Bryant’s death.

Media outlets and public figures immediately reported Tuesday afternoon that police had killed an unarmed girl, though body camera footage from the incident showed Bryant pushing one woman down on the sidewalk before swinging a knife at a different woman.

Police shot Bryant multiple times after they repeatedly told her to “get down.”

Twitter itself sparked a backlash through its description of Bryant’s death in a Wednesday Twitter Moment that made no mention of the fact that Bryant had a knife and was attempting to stab another black woman.

Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF on why it did not include the full picture surrounding Bryant’s death.

The post Twitter Refuses To Address Whether Lebron James Tweet Violated Terms Of Service appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The term “freemium” comes from a combination of the words “free” and “premium.” It refers to a business model that includes providing consumers with both complimentary and extra-cost services. A company offers easy and introductory services for free to users to try out; it also charges a fee for more specialized services or extra functionality. Jarid Lukin of Alacra, a provider of corporate knowledge and workflow software, is credited with coining the word freemium in 2006. The method, on the other hand, dates back to the 1980s. A freemium model is one in which a company provides a service to a customer at no expense in order to lay the groundwork for future purchases. Companies create relationships with consumers by providing free essential services, then charging them for advanced services, add-ons, increased storage or use restrictions, or an ad-free user experience. For Internet-based businesses with low customer acquisition costs but high lifetime value, the freemium model works well. The freemium business model allows users to try out basic features of apps, games, or services for free before paying for upgrades to the essential bundle. It’s a common strategy used by new businesses to entice consumers to use their software or service.

Who provides a freemium service?

Many companies use this business model nowadays; however, we will look at a few and explain why they have worked so well for these particular companies.

Dropbox – Dropbox has nailed the balance and is a shining illustration of what a freemium service should be. The free version is very popular and meets the needs of the vast majority of users. Anyone who wants more can choose from a number of clearly specified incremental upgrades.

Spotify – The platform that resurrected a music industry plagued by declining physical sales and stagnant downloads and is widely credited with cracking the freemium model. Despite recent criticism that their free edition is too limited (too many commercials, insufficient song selection), they could have 100 million paying subscribers by the beginning of 2020. These are some remarkable figures.

WordPress – Free blogging program that allows you to quickly and easily build your own website. This platform made everything that used to be prohibitively expensive available to the general public. According to Toni Schneider, CEO of WordPress, “we just charge for the items that are extremely difficult to do.” Customers are expected to think, “This is difficult, this is costly, and I’m willing to pay for it.”

Candy Crush – Without a doubt, this is one of the most popular freemium games. In gaming, an excellent freemium model entails paying for premium features. Candy Crush has perfected the contentious in-app purchasing definition. The integration of Facebook has been crucial in enabling a game to become a topic of discussion, comparison, and competition among friends.

Casino Games – Many online casinos now offer a freemium service, even from day one. You can sign up to an online casino and straight away can be rewarded with free spins on a free online slot game. This gives players a chance to try before they buy, so to speak, and test certain games before committing to spending any money. They also have a chance of winning money too, so it is a very enticing offer. Players are also often given free spins for signing into their accounts regularly or by depositing money. This keeps the players coming back and, therefore, high player retention.

One Drive – If DropBox isn’t your thing, OneDrive is a great alternative that gives users five gigs of storage space to save whatever they want. OneDrive is particularly useful if you use Microsoft’s 360 tools because it automatically syncs all of your documents to the cloud.

Skype – With Skype’s free plan, you can chat one-on-one with anyone in the world via instant messaging or video. This is an easy to use, dependable choice for maintaining a face-to-face relationship for a company that involves travel or foreign clients, but voice calls to landlines can cost money.

People always want something for nothing.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in life, it’s that people would do anything for a freebie. On the other hand, freebies aren’t just fun for the customer; they’re also marketing gold for the company. Any piece of swag you hand out increases the likelihood that the recipient will remember your brand and tell their buddies about it the next time they put on that shirt or take out that pen. The freemium business model’s magic is its potential to expand a company at breakneck speed through advocacy. Users get firsthand experience with the importance of the product and vigorously spread the word.

The post How technology is taking advantage of freemium services appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.