Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Jun 2019 @ 8:22pm
Re: Java Cript
Part of the question is enjoy what? Regurgitation of what politicos, or bureaucrats, or big companies or etc. say? Or something of substance? The NYT seems to be willing to print whatever some unduly passionate personae is willing to say, whether there is any efficacy to their statements or not.
So, bypassing the paywall gets us what? The issue needs to be addressed at a more comprehensive level than just getting past the paywall.
We want news, ethically presented and backstopped with facts.
Now how to get that to us via the Internet, whereby the providers of such news whether local, national, or international and maintain the viability of the providers is the question.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Jun 2019 @ 8:10pm
Self Control
Maybe the world could exercise better self control. Some will, some won't. That the content is available isn't really the issue, that some will not exercise self control or have a predilection to enact with those things others want band, is.
Can we prevent the predilection? Probably not. Not without a lot of psychoanalysis that many, many won't get, and then some of that is questionable. Even then, what would we do, charge them with thought crimes?
To some extent, that is what all this is about. Those with self control don't enact with this type of content. Those without, at least until they do something awful, haven't actually committed a crime yet (at least under US jurisprudence).
So in the end the whole purpose of some of this moderation wangdoodle is to prevent thought crime, which in my mind is not actually possible, but would go a long way to harm anyone I didn't like for some reason or another.
To set up some way to prevent those who might be adversely or otherwise negatively affected by such content would be about as effective as the UK's attempt at controlling porn.
And, as seen in the article, the moderation process is harmful in and of itself.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Jun 2019 @ 7:27pm
Not just yes or no, but how much?
First off, finding a news source that tells the truth, regardless of whether the source demands reporting what I say or one gets loss of access, or whether someone calls it 'fake news' is imperative.
Secondly, while the model might work for some national or international venues, the same does not work for local. One might be willing to financially support a national news site if they maintain integrity, or an international news site, again if they maintain integrity, but just how many should one person support?
Usually, in the real world (or at least as it used to be eons ago), someone might subscribe to a local paper, a national paper, some magazines which might be news or special interest oriented, and that's it. Just how much of that is the online experience trying to convert? (Time/Life changed their views on the magazine business in the 1970'S with the understanding that they could produce 1000 magazines as easily as they could produce 7 and that they could connect with the special interests of subscribers to those 1000 magazines just as easily but with a greater gross and net income (I have some inside perspective on this which I will not share)).
Then there is the local angle. Podunk Sentinel Online might be important for local information and news, but what 'extra' are they going to provide to give 'members' the incentive to pay? Or maybe a more important question is, how much more than the current subscription price are they asking? High school sports scores? The local police blotter? The obits? The society page? Comments (a local forum on whatever and moderated by whom, someone with an agenda or someone who literally only deletes spam)?
And there's the rub. If they are asking for more than the printed subscription then they are asking too much. If they are asking for less than the printed subscription but cloud the content with advertising no one wants, then they are asking too much. If they are presenting 'news' that is merely a regurgitation of whatever whomever said, then they are asking too much. But, if they actually do some investigative reporting and report without consideration of consequence from the local establishment, then they might have something. Bug then we come down to the process of right sizing the news production entity, a discussion worth having, but not here. Getting the local populace to support that might be problematic as the local populace might be in support of whatever the local hi-jinks are.
And that is why, but not the only reason why, I support Techdirt. Regardless of accusations by certain multinamed and some unnamed trolls, and a few haters, Techdirt does their utmost to discern the difference between truth and lie. They are not omniscient, and cannot cover every instance, and do to a certain extent follow a set of themes, but they do also try to present facts along with analysis. While they may not expand on opposing viewpoints, they don't actually ignore them. And they have comments, for wherever worth they are when a significant part of the community insists upon responding to the trolls.
I don't support any other organization in the same way. I get my news from RSS feeds (about 30) and a dozen or so (there are 21 but some of them are comics and weather sites) links that go to news websites that don't support RSS (shame on them). In addition, I don't watch TV or Cable, but I know enough about what is going on in the world, and locally, to keep me informed to the extent that I can talk with the people I connect with in person to be more informed than they are. Then again, I am retired, and they might not be.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Jun 2019 @ 5:52pm
Voters suspect in approving White Supremacy
I wonder how much of Senator Josh Hawley's association with white supremacists was apparent during his campaign? Did the voters actually know about this, and if they did, how much election interference was recorded in Missouri in 2018?
If none, something is suspect. Given that the white/black ratio was 82%/11% it might not be significant, but it does say something about Missouri.
None of which means the rest of us should accommodate his perspective.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Jun 2019 @ 5:19pm
Self Control
Maybe the world could exercise better self control. Some will, some won't. That the content is available isn't really the issue, that some will not exercise self control or have a predilection to enact with those things others want band, is.
Can we prevent the predilection? Probably not. Not without a lot of psychoanalysis that many, many won't get, and then some of that is questionable. Even then, what would we do, charge them with thought crimes?
To some extent, that is what all this is about. Those with self control don't enact with this type of content. Those without, at least until they do something awful, haven't actually committed a crime yet (at least under US jurisprudence).
So in the end the whole purpose of some of this moderation wangdoodle is to prevent thought crime, which in my mind is not actually possible, but would go a long way to harm anyone I didn't like for some reason or another.
To set up some way to prevent those who might be adversely or otherwise negatively affected by such content would be about as effective as the UK's attempt at controlling porn.
And, as seen in the article, the moderation process is harmful in and of itself.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Jun 2019 @ 11:26am
Re:
At least until the machine learning part of the AI becomes so corrupted by all the violence and horror it is forced to review that it figures out that if bad is so prevalent then in reality it must be good. Or it starts to ban Hollywood made movies. Both are likely.
Then there is the problem of getting the AI to comprehend satire, parody, and sarcasm, especially when subtlety is present. Not even humans have the same capacity for that.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Jun 2019 @ 6:12pm
The consternation of confusion
If the cat is in the bag, then the caterpillar got eaten, or became it's toy.
How the trademark thing works out will depend upon whether the USPTO can discern the difference between a company that makes large machines and others who happen for what is likely a large variety of reasons, use the word cat in their trademarks. Since the basis for trademark is consumer confusion one must wonder how the USPTO might go about determining if a 'cat' company is confused over whether they are buying a tractor or a cup of coffee.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Jun 2019 @ 1:46pm
Re: Re: Re: Science Reporting...
If news were important to newspapers they wouldn't act as public relations entities for politicians, governments, big corporations, or the unduly passionate.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Jun 2019 @ 1:25pm
So they break Google up...
...and what do we get. A separate search engine company. A separate video platform company. A separate email company. A separate whatever else Google did company.
Assuming YouTube gets to keep their name and users continue to upload at the same rate, how does that fix the problem of moderating YouTube?
So what other excuses can the haters come up with to break up Google, or for that matter any of the other large tech companies (excluding telecom and cable and other ISP companies, we have plenty of excuses to break them up).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Jun 2019 @ 6:52am
The Good, The Bad, and how can we get over
Is this a message to good cops who see bad cops doing things they shouldn't? If so, where is the protection for the good cop who will see repercussions from his/her fellow officers when they 'turn the bad cop' in?
If we want to get rid of bad cops, one branch (at least) of the process is to have good cops stop the bad activity, and eventually get rid of the bad cops. To do so, the good cops need to feel that they will be supported in their actions, by management, by law, by the prosecutors, by the courts, and also in reality (something that will be difficult so long as the bad cops are around).
Policing is a dangerous job. Not the most dangerous, but dangerous none the less. We see cops trying to create safe spaces for themselves (the right to go home for dinner, so shoot first ask questions later) which is not really in their job descriptions, so asking for safe spaces for good cops seems a bit odd. However, it also seems to be, to some extent, necessary because bad cops have no qualms about shooting innocent citizens. What qualms would they have over shooting good cops who turn them in?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Jun 2019 @ 10:19am
Re: Democrats are creating moral panic as an excuse to destroy t
Oh, Democrats can be bought, Republicans too. Not so sure about Independents though.
And yes, some people want change for the sake of change, whether that change is for the good or not. On the other hand For The Love of Stare Decisis precedent can be overcome, just not easily.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Jun 2019 @ 7:58am
Moral Panic...
...is the lifeblood of the politician in re-election mode, which starts immediately upon election. They feel they need to be seen 'doing something' which includes 'anything even if it's wrong' so that their 'base' can justify having voted for them in the past, and keep them intent upon voting for them in the future.
It's a systemic thing, predicated upon how we run our political system. The existence of parties, parties that have power to anoint one rather than the other due to political favors rather than ability and the election process where you only get one choice (I forget the name of the system where you vote for your first favorite, then your second favorite...etc.) have helped to arrange our current situation. Both of these need to change.
Some laws that hold the elected to the positions they took on the campaign trail, and possibly allowing for a no confidence referendum while in office might help mitigate.
There aren't many answers in the piece, but I believe the right questions are being asked. The fact that the same piece of data might have different values depending upon what it is exchanged for and how often highlights the difficulty in trying to discern what the value of that data is. Then conversely how often a particular service is used by one individual might set the value for them at one price point, but for another user, who uses that server either more or less, sets different price points.
One thing I did not notice, but might have missed, is where privacy comes down in all this. But if one is understanding of what is being collected, and how it is being used, and is still willing to use the service/give up the data, then they are foregoing their privacy on purpose.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: What’s Your Opinion #1
Time fly's when you're having fun...and the fun from our government is spiking?
On the post: The Paywall Conundrum: Even Those Who Like Paying For News Don't Pay For Much News
Then there are black holes :-)
https://johnhartstudios.com/bc/2019/06/22/saturday-june-22-2019/
On the post: The Paywall Conundrum: Even Those Who Like Paying For News Don't Pay For Much News
Re: Java Cript
Part of the question is enjoy what? Regurgitation of what politicos, or bureaucrats, or big companies or etc. say? Or something of substance? The NYT seems to be willing to print whatever some unduly passionate personae is willing to say, whether there is any efficacy to their statements or not.
So, bypassing the paywall gets us what? The issue needs to be addressed at a more comprehensive level than just getting past the paywall.
We want news, ethically presented and backstopped with facts.
Now how to get that to us via the Internet, whereby the providers of such news whether local, national, or international and maintain the viability of the providers is the question.
On the post: Before Demanding Internet Companies 'Hire More Moderators,' Perhaps We Should Look At How Awful The Job Is
Self Control
Maybe the world could exercise better self control. Some will, some won't. That the content is available isn't really the issue, that some will not exercise self control or have a predilection to enact with those things others want band, is.
Can we prevent the predilection? Probably not. Not without a lot of psychoanalysis that many, many won't get, and then some of that is questionable. Even then, what would we do, charge them with thought crimes?
To some extent, that is what all this is about. Those with self control don't enact with this type of content. Those without, at least until they do something awful, haven't actually committed a crime yet (at least under US jurisprudence).
So in the end the whole purpose of some of this moderation wangdoodle is to prevent thought crime, which in my mind is not actually possible, but would go a long way to harm anyone I didn't like for some reason or another.
To set up some way to prevent those who might be adversely or otherwise negatively affected by such content would be about as effective as the UK's attempt at controlling porn.
And, as seen in the article, the moderation process is harmful in and of itself.
On the post: The Paywall Conundrum: Even Those Who Like Paying For News Don't Pay For Much News
Not just yes or no, but how much?
First off, finding a news source that tells the truth, regardless of whether the source demands reporting what I say or one gets loss of access, or whether someone calls it 'fake news' is imperative.
Secondly, while the model might work for some national or international venues, the same does not work for local. One might be willing to financially support a national news site if they maintain integrity, or an international news site, again if they maintain integrity, but just how many should one person support?
Usually, in the real world (or at least as it used to be eons ago), someone might subscribe to a local paper, a national paper, some magazines which might be news or special interest oriented, and that's it. Just how much of that is the online experience trying to convert? (Time/Life changed their views on the magazine business in the 1970'S with the understanding that they could produce 1000 magazines as easily as they could produce 7 and that they could connect with the special interests of subscribers to those 1000 magazines just as easily but with a greater gross and net income (I have some inside perspective on this which I will not share)).
Then there is the local angle. Podunk Sentinel Online might be important for local information and news, but what 'extra' are they going to provide to give 'members' the incentive to pay? Or maybe a more important question is, how much more than the current subscription price are they asking? High school sports scores? The local police blotter? The obits? The society page? Comments (a local forum on whatever and moderated by whom, someone with an agenda or someone who literally only deletes spam)?
And there's the rub. If they are asking for more than the printed subscription then they are asking too much. If they are asking for less than the printed subscription but cloud the content with advertising no one wants, then they are asking too much. If they are presenting 'news' that is merely a regurgitation of whatever whomever said, then they are asking too much. But, if they actually do some investigative reporting and report without consideration of consequence from the local establishment, then they might have something. Bug then we come down to the process of right sizing the news production entity, a discussion worth having, but not here. Getting the local populace to support that might be problematic as the local populace might be in support of whatever the local hi-jinks are.
And that is why, but not the only reason why, I support Techdirt. Regardless of accusations by certain multinamed and some unnamed trolls, and a few haters, Techdirt does their utmost to discern the difference between truth and lie. They are not omniscient, and cannot cover every instance, and do to a certain extent follow a set of themes, but they do also try to present facts along with analysis. While they may not expand on opposing viewpoints, they don't actually ignore them. And they have comments, for wherever worth they are when a significant part of the community insists upon responding to the trolls.
I don't support any other organization in the same way. I get my news from RSS feeds (about 30) and a dozen or so (there are 21 but some of them are comics and weather sites) links that go to news websites that don't support RSS (shame on them). In addition, I don't watch TV or Cable, but I know enough about what is going on in the world, and locally, to keep me informed to the extent that I can talk with the people I connect with in person to be more informed than they are. Then again, I am retired, and they might not be.
On the post: Guy Pushing Hawley's 'Viewpoint Neutrality' Concept In The Media Used To Write For White Supremacist Site
Voters suspect in approving White Supremacy
I wonder how much of Senator Josh Hawley's association with white supremacists was apparent during his campaign? Did the voters actually know about this, and if they did, how much election interference was recorded in Missouri in 2018?
If none, something is suspect. Given that the white/black ratio was 82%/11% it might not be significant, but it does say something about Missouri.
None of which means the rest of us should accommodate his perspective.
On the post: Before Demanding Internet Companies 'Hire More Moderators,' Perhaps We Should Look At How Awful The Job Is
Self Control
Maybe the world could exercise better self control. Some will, some won't. That the content is available isn't really the issue, that some will not exercise self control or have a predilection to enact with those things others want band, is.
Can we prevent the predilection? Probably not. Not without a lot of psychoanalysis that many, many won't get, and then some of that is questionable. Even then, what would we do, charge them with thought crimes?
To some extent, that is what all this is about. Those with self control don't enact with this type of content. Those without, at least until they do something awful, haven't actually committed a crime yet (at least under US jurisprudence).
So in the end the whole purpose of some of this moderation wangdoodle is to prevent thought crime, which in my mind is not actually possible, but would go a long way to harm anyone I didn't like for some reason or another.
To set up some way to prevent those who might be adversely or otherwise negatively affected by such content would be about as effective as the UK's attempt at controlling porn.
And, as seen in the article, the moderation process is harmful in and of itself.
On the post: Before Demanding Internet Companies 'Hire More Moderators,' Perhaps We Should Look At How Awful The Job Is
Re:
At least until the machine learning part of the AI becomes so corrupted by all the violence and horror it is forced to review that it figures out that if bad is so prevalent then in reality it must be good. Or it starts to ban Hollywood made movies. Both are likely.
Then there is the problem of getting the AI to comprehend satire, parody, and sarcasm, especially when subtlety is present. Not even humans have the same capacity for that.
On the post: Caterpillar Now Going After All The Cats For Trademark Cancellations
The consternation of confusion
If the cat is in the bag, then the caterpillar got eaten, or became it's toy.
How the trademark thing works out will depend upon whether the USPTO can discern the difference between a company that makes large machines and others who happen for what is likely a large variety of reasons, use the word cat in their trademarks. Since the basis for trademark is consumer confusion one must wonder how the USPTO might go about determining if a 'cat' company is confused over whether they are buying a tractor or a cup of coffee.
On the post: No, Your Kid Isn't Growing Horns Because Of Cellphone Use
Re: Re: Re: Science Reporting...
If news were important to newspapers they wouldn't act as public relations entities for politicians, governments, big corporations, or the unduly passionate.
On the post: Google CEO Admits That It's Impossible To Moderate YouTube Perfectly; CNBC Blasts Him
So they break Google up...
...and what do we get. A separate search engine company. A separate video platform company. A separate email company. A separate whatever else Google did company.
Assuming YouTube gets to keep their name and users continue to upload at the same rate, how does that fix the problem of moderating YouTube?
So what other excuses can the haters come up with to break up Google, or for that matter any of the other large tech companies (excluding telecom and cable and other ISP companies, we have plenty of excuses to break them up).
On the post: Can't Have Copyright Enforcement Without Destroying Privacy Protections
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copytheft
"(Works not intended for the public shouldn’t be copyrightable at all; they don’t merit it)"
Maybe that should be not for sale.
On the post: No, Your Kid Isn't Growing Horns Because Of Cellphone Use
Re: Science Reporting...
In increasing order of importance, headlines, readers, advertising.
On the post: Appeals Court Reminds Deputies That Standing By While Rights Are Violated Is No Better Than Violating Them Yourself
The Good, The Bad, and how can we get over
Is this a message to good cops who see bad cops doing things they shouldn't? If so, where is the protection for the good cop who will see repercussions from his/her fellow officers when they 'turn the bad cop' in?
If we want to get rid of bad cops, one branch (at least) of the process is to have good cops stop the bad activity, and eventually get rid of the bad cops. To do so, the good cops need to feel that they will be supported in their actions, by management, by law, by the prosecutors, by the courts, and also in reality (something that will be difficult so long as the bad cops are around).
Policing is a dangerous job. Not the most dangerous, but dangerous none the less. We see cops trying to create safe spaces for themselves (the right to go home for dinner, so shoot first ask questions later) which is not really in their job descriptions, so asking for safe spaces for good cops seems a bit odd. However, it also seems to be, to some extent, necessary because bad cops have no qualms about shooting innocent citizens. What qualms would they have over shooting good cops who turn them in?
On the post: Kim Kardashian Deep Fake Video Removed By Copyright Claim
My my
I have always thought Kim Kardashian was a deep fake.
On the post: Congress Now Creating A Moral Panic Around Deepfakes In Order To Change CDA 230
Re: Democrats are creating moral panic as an excuse to destroy t
Oh, Democrats can be bought, Republicans too. Not so sure about Independents though.
And yes, some people want change for the sake of change, whether that change is for the good or not. On the other hand For The Love of Stare Decisis precedent can be overcome, just not easily.
On the post: Congress Now Creating A Moral Panic Around Deepfakes In Order To Change CDA 230
Moral Panic...
...is the lifeblood of the politician in re-election mode, which starts immediately upon election. They feel they need to be seen 'doing something' which includes 'anything even if it's wrong' so that their 'base' can justify having voted for them in the past, and keep them intent upon voting for them in the future.
It's a systemic thing, predicated upon how we run our political system. The existence of parties, parties that have power to anoint one rather than the other due to political favors rather than ability and the election process where you only get one choice (I forget the name of the system where you vote for your first favorite, then your second favorite...etc.) have helped to arrange our current situation. Both of these need to change.
Some laws that hold the elected to the positions they took on the campaign trail, and possibly allowing for a no confidence referendum while in office might help mitigate.
On the post: Comcast Gets $9 Million Fine For Tricking Customers With 'Worthless' Protection Plans
Some things don't add up
Somewhere in those, and probably other, numbers lies the answer, but I am having a hard time making these numbers make sense.
On the post: If You Think The Reason Internet Companies Snarf Up Your Data Is Because Their Services Are Free, Allow Me To Introduce You To The Telcos
Then what is your data worth?
This nicely brings up the question of whether it is you or the corporation that is getting screwed...or neither. I recently came across a Bruce Schneir piece that quoted an abstract (there are comments on that page as well) for an academic paper entitled Return on Data (PDF) .
There aren't many answers in the piece, but I believe the right questions are being asked. The fact that the same piece of data might have different values depending upon what it is exchanged for and how often highlights the difficulty in trying to discern what the value of that data is. Then conversely how often a particular service is used by one individual might set the value for them at one price point, but for another user, who uses that server either more or less, sets different price points.
One thing I did not notice, but might have missed, is where privacy comes down in all this. But if one is understanding of what is being collected, and how it is being used, and is still willing to use the service/give up the data, then they are foregoing their privacy on purpose.
On the post: Court: Planning To Get A Warrant Is As Good As Actually Having A Warrant When Searching A House
Re: Don't get us started on the dogs.
Even if it was an open book test?
Next >>