Jeff - https://youtu.be/MEU2EJBkJcs
Matt - https://youtu.be/hazLCb-K3HE
Josh - https://youtu.be/mbkWniWSpR0
Bonus clip, Mattie ''haggling'' with a grizzled lawyer over her dead fathers possessions...heheh.
https://youtu.be/qpRxj0QwgjY
(man who played Gavin)
I really love his work, from his role as Gavin to his film 'Captain Fantastic'.
But there's so little appearance of Mr.Ross. He doesn't even have social media. And I cannot find any traces of him in any media for the last two years.
After Captain Fantastic, he said he was planning a few more films.
What happened? Just doesn't want to shoot? Busy with something else? Escaped civilization into the forest? Fucked up someone wrong? Got into some Hollywood scandal? Was abducted by aliens? What?
//srry for bad eng, Ρ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠ΅ Ρ Π°ΡΠΊΠ΅Ρ))))
'Necessary but not sufficient" is how I regard the August 23 recommendation, by Ross Barkan, that "The Left Needs to Get Off Facebook", because, as Barkan explains: >When a corporate titan with values antithetical to the long-term projects of the left, like forcing these corporations to pay far more in taxes or dissolve altogether, is asked to police speech, it may only be a matter of time before its enemiesβnot just those who promote outright fabricationsβend up in its crosshairs.
Matt Stoller's "BIG" antitrust newsletter installment of September 4 is subtitled "Facebook is directly responsible for violence globally and in American society. Mark Zuckerberg, or Facebook, needs to be held liable": >All of which brings me to the violence and strife occurring in the United States and around the world. Right-wingers and left-wingers each want to blame the other side for what is happening, with allegations of βanarchyβ and βantifaβ tossed out as easily as βwhite supremacy.β It is a scary situation, as guns are now involved. But I think whatβs important to recognize is that it is too easy to see what is happening as some unique Trump-specific episode, instead of part of a pattern of strife induced by social media products.
How and why? Because Facebook: >promotes content that is most likely to keep people paying attention to Facebook, in order to sell more advertising. And the false rumors, and resulting violence, is a side effect of the need to sell advertising; it is a product design feature.
This suggests applicability of existing laws on product liability, because: >Facebookβs product ... is defective, because while I might sign up for Facebook to stay in touch with friends and family or get access to the internet, the unexpected [by users] result is that I get addicted to a service that gives me false information about potential violence.
Although, as Stoller explains at length, a court has rejected the first lawsuit using this product liability theory, against Grindr, by victimβs rights attorney Carrie Goldberg, this theory and others are becoming a matter of life and death -- for all of us: >we have to place the locus of responsibility for harm on the those who build and sell the products that cause harm. If we donβt, then harm will spread, because itβs cheaper and easier to
... keep reading on reddit β‘
Just curious since Iβve never really seen anything about them
