Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 May 2019 @ 9:42am
Vicious Circles
The problem with Facebook's method of dealing with this issue is that it is arguing about arguing while the users are arguing about arguments. While their intent is to stop the arguing, their method is feeding the argument. They cannot pacify one or the other without incensing the other or one.
Maybe they should be looking at degrees or intent rather than content. Is the comment or post calling for action and does that action contain or propose violence? Or is the comment or post discussing others actions (violent or not) or calls to action, and is it in support of violent action or merely acknowledging that someone else made such a call? To claim that something is stated in either a positive or negative manner is insufficient. What is the post or comment actually about? Or could degrees be differently defined?
Or direction, is the comment pointed at someone or something current or in the future, or is it related to something in the past? In particular what words or phrases might be about inciting something, and then do those depend upon context? Is what is being incited good, bad, marginal, harmful, easily discerned, or obtuse to the point that intent cannot be determined? If discussing some violent history (past), is there also a call to repeat that violence (future) (which should not be allowed)? Take action, sure, take violent action, no.
There is a difference between derogatory remarks and threats. That difference should be clearly defined in such a way that the most common of the common can discern the difference. A call to violent action is a threat. Discussing past violent actions is not a threat, but will likely contain derogatory remarks about one party or the other. Perceived butt hurt is not a threat, but suggesting harm is.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 May 2019 @ 6:31am
Re: First Thing I'd've Said...
There are at least two PRO's in the US, ASCAP and BMI (if I remember correctly), and opposing them seems like a waste of money, as I have never heard of anyone winning against them. You pay the lawyers and then you pay them. The difference here would be if all music from a certain establishment was from this collection (all public domain) there would be an argument for the court (which is certainly where you would wind up). An expensive argument, and one that you should win, but still expensive. Then there, of course, is the question of whether this course of music would attract/satisfy the clientele.
Now if a group of restaurants, let's say geographically diverse, got together to fund that lawsuit/defense (depending on who sues), then it might be economically feasible.
You forget that restaurants are killing home cooking, due to that something they deliver that home cooking doesn't seem to. Oh, and entertainment that isn't 'on the tube'.
If the Almonds had inventories, pictures, registration numbers of all the things taken by these thieves with badges, then their lawsuit could demand the return of the actual original property along with a few million dollars for the loss of income, past, present, and future, and a few million more for the pain, suffering and embarrassment caused by these out of control agents of the law, and win. The sad part is that it will be the tax payers that bear the brunt of a lawsuit win, rather than the officers and departments they represent.
"...A D.C. restaurant stopped booking live music due to license demands from a Performance Rights Organization."
I am wondering what Performance Rights Organizations would do if a restaurant booked live entertainment that ONLY used music from this book. Nothing good, I suspect.
"In Austria, the purchase of a phone or SIM card requires the purchaser to turn all of this information over to the retailer. "
I bet that there are many Austrians walking around with cellphones purchased in bordering countries. What a way to move business away from your constituents.
Why not go global, after all DIsney did? They also got the USTR to implore (aka force) the rest of the world to go along with their ridiculous concept of what is a fair length for copyright. The fact that the original terms had been working well for over 100 years (in the US, and longer elsewhere) had no bearing on what Sonny Bono did at the behest of the MAFFIAA.
I hate to let Mickey D's secret out (I have never worked for them not has anyone there leaked anything to me, I figured this out on my own) but I will. Their special sauce is 1 tablespoon of sweet pickle relish mixed with about 1/2 cup of mayonnaise. Those proportions might be off a tiny bit, but that mixture would satisfy anyone with a 'special sauce' jones.
Those sound like exceptions, rather than what is the rule. I don't disagree that those exceptions should have some protection, but it appears that the way the law is , and is going to be used will do serious harm to some companies that don't deserve it, and likely some serious harm to the economy, like patent and copyright trolling.
Re: Re: Re: Illegal activity is NOT protected speech
If there is no official law against something, then it is not illegal. That cops don't understand this and give you 'the ride' anyway might very well be an actual illegal act, though one that is very difficult, if not impossible to get action upon.
Please tell us which part of any comment on any platform resides in Texas, with the remaining parts of said comment spread not just throughout the remaining 49 states, but the rest of the world? Oh, and what if Oklahoma (or pick a state) disagrees?
If they want a neutral platform, then wouldn't tit for tat make sense? If you take down some 'conservative' comment then they could take down some 'liberal' comment chosen by say a blind person throwing a dart at a wall of numbers listing all the 'liberal' comments.
Of course, the dividing line between 'liberal' and 'conservative' is subjective as all get out, so the next argument will be about where that line is placed. Then they will argue about how far right one comment was while the other wasn't left enough or too left to be comparable. Ad infinitum!
Simple obstruction of a highway of commerce is the intentional or criminally negligent placing of anything or performance of any act on any railway, railroad, navigable waterway, road, highway, thoroughfare, or runway of an airport, which will render movement thereon more difficult.
Whoever commits the crime of simple obstruction of a highway of commerce shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.
Though the code doesn't say, it sure looks more like a misdemeanor rather than a felony, so your theory guilt by association does not work.
Yes, I know, we don't have all the facts (and I said so), the question remains if McKesson did in fact lead them onto the highway, how does that indicate an instruction for someone in the crowd to become violent? So far, that is the only allegation, though more may come up in the remand trial.
On the post: GPS Service Vulnerability Opened Door To Remote Vehicle Shutdown
Re: Re:
But the insurance companies will, and they's got them some influence.
On the post: Impossible Content Moderation Dilemmas: Talking About Racism Blocked As Hate Speech
Vicious Circles
The problem with Facebook's method of dealing with this issue is that it is arguing about arguing while the users are arguing about arguments. While their intent is to stop the arguing, their method is feeding the argument. They cannot pacify one or the other without incensing the other or one.
Maybe they should be looking at degrees or intent rather than content. Is the comment or post calling for action and does that action contain or propose violence? Or is the comment or post discussing others actions (violent or not) or calls to action, and is it in support of violent action or merely acknowledging that someone else made such a call? To claim that something is stated in either a positive or negative manner is insufficient. What is the post or comment actually about? Or could degrees be differently defined?
Or direction, is the comment pointed at someone or something current or in the future, or is it related to something in the past? In particular what words or phrases might be about inciting something, and then do those depend upon context? Is what is being incited good, bad, marginal, harmful, easily discerned, or obtuse to the point that intent cannot be determined? If discussing some violent history (past), is there also a call to repeat that violence (future) (which should not be allowed)? Take action, sure, take violent action, no.
There is a difference between derogatory remarks and threats. That difference should be clearly defined in such a way that the most common of the common can discern the difference. A call to violent action is a threat. Discussing past violent actions is not a threat, but will likely contain derogatory remarks about one party or the other. Perceived butt hurt is not a threat, but suggesting harm is.
On the post: Announcing: The Public Domain Song Anthology
Re: First Thing I'd've Said...
There are at least two PRO's in the US, ASCAP and BMI (if I remember correctly), and opposing them seems like a waste of money, as I have never heard of anyone winning against them. You pay the lawyers and then you pay them. The difference here would be if all music from a certain establishment was from this collection (all public domain) there would be an argument for the court (which is certainly where you would wind up). An expensive argument, and one that you should win, but still expensive. Then there, of course, is the question of whether this course of music would attract/satisfy the clientele.
Now if a group of restaurants, let's say geographically diverse, got together to fund that lawsuit/defense (depending on who sues), then it might be economically feasible.
On the post: Announcing: The Public Domain Song Anthology
Re:
You forget that restaurants are killing home cooking, due to that something they deliver that home cooking doesn't seem to. Oh, and entertainment that isn't 'on the tube'.
On the post: Deputies Destroy House, Lives To Recover $50 Of Marijuana And A Single, Unbottled Pill
Wouldn't it be loverly
If the Almonds had inventories, pictures, registration numbers of all the things taken by these thieves with badges, then their lawsuit could demand the return of the actual original property along with a few million dollars for the loss of income, past, present, and future, and a few million more for the pain, suffering and embarrassment caused by these out of control agents of the law, and win. The sad part is that it will be the tax payers that bear the brunt of a lawsuit win, rather than the officers and departments they represent.
On the post: Announcing: The Public Domain Song Anthology
Overly officious, self important, unhearing, asswipes
I am wondering what Performance Rights Organizations would do if a restaurant booked live entertainment that ONLY used music from this book. Nothing good, I suspect.
On the post: Austrian Government Wants To Outlaw Online Anonymity
Promoting commerce in other countries
I bet that there are many Austrians walking around with cellphones purchased in bordering countries. What a way to move business away from your constituents.
On the post: Austrian Government Wants To Outlaw Online Anonymity
Banning Anonymity
I take double exception to that!
On the post: Tired: Insane Patent Verdicts; Wired: Insane Trade Secret Verdicts
Re: Re: Copyright duration and such.
Why not go global, after all DIsney did? They also got the USTR to implore (aka force) the rest of the world to go along with their ridiculous concept of what is a fair length for copyright. The fact that the original terms had been working well for over 100 years (in the US, and longer elsewhere) had no bearing on what Sonny Bono did at the behest of the MAFFIAA.
On the post: Tired: Insane Patent Verdicts; Wired: Insane Trade Secret Verdicts
Re: Re: Copyright duration and such.
I hate to let Mickey D's secret out (I have never worked for them not has anyone there leaked anything to me, I figured this out on my own) but I will. Their special sauce is 1 tablespoon of sweet pickle relish mixed with about 1/2 cup of mayonnaise. Those proportions might be off a tiny bit, but that mixture would satisfy anyone with a 'special sauce' jones.
On the post: Tired: Insane Patent Verdicts; Wired: Insane Trade Secret Verdicts
Re: Re:
Those sound like exceptions, rather than what is the rule. I don't disagree that those exceptions should have some protection, but it appears that the way the law is , and is going to be used will do serious harm to some companies that don't deserve it, and likely some serious harm to the economy, like patent and copyright trolling.
On the post: NYPD Oversight Report Confirms NYPD Not Interested In Being Overseen
Does your boss give you options?
My surprise is that they have a choice.
On the post: Appeals Court: Idiot Cop Can Continue To Sue A Protester Over Actions Taken By Another Protester
Re: Re: Re: Illegal activity is NOT protected speech
If there is no official law against something, then it is not illegal. That cops don't understand this and give you 'the ride' anyway might very well be an actual illegal act, though one that is very difficult, if not impossible to get action upon.
On the post: Texas Senator Pushing A Bill That Would Allow The State To Sue Twitter For Banning Conservatives
Re: Re:
A platform isn't a carrier, and ISP is. ISP's aren't the ones being targeted here, platforms (specifically social media platforms) are.
On the post: Texas Senator Pushing A Bill That Would Allow The State To Sue Twitter For Banning Conservatives
Re: States Rights
Please tell us which part of any comment on any platform resides in Texas, with the remaining parts of said comment spread not just throughout the remaining 49 states, but the rest of the world? Oh, and what if Oklahoma (or pick a state) disagrees?
On the post: Texas Senator Pushing A Bill That Would Allow The State To Sue Twitter For Banning Conservatives
The battle for neutrality
If they want a neutral platform, then wouldn't tit for tat make sense? If you take down some 'conservative' comment then they could take down some 'liberal' comment chosen by say a blind person throwing a dart at a wall of numbers listing all the 'liberal' comments.
Of course, the dividing line between 'liberal' and 'conservative' is subjective as all get out, so the next argument will be about where that line is placed. Then they will argue about how far right one comment was while the other wasn't left enough or too left to be comparable. Ad infinitum!
Then we get into the weeds...
/s
On the post: Appeals Court: Idiot Cop Can Continue To Sue A Protester Over Actions Taken By Another Protester
Re: Re: Re:
Though the code doesn't say, it sure looks more like a misdemeanor rather than a felony, so your theory guilt by association does not work.
On the post: Appeals Court: Idiot Cop Can Continue To Sue A Protester Over Actions Taken By Another Protester
Re: Re: Re: The Appeals Court...
Yes, I know, we don't have all the facts (and I said so), the question remains if McKesson did in fact lead them onto the highway, how does that indicate an instruction for someone in the crowd to become violent? So far, that is the only allegation, though more may come up in the remand trial.
On the post: Appeals Court: Idiot Cop Can Continue To Sue A Protester Over Actions Taken By Another Protester
Re: The Appeals Court...
Leading other people onto a highway, as a legal act or not, does not instruct them to throw rocks. So where does McKesson's liability come from?
That is of course that McKesson did in fact lead them onto the highway, according to the appeals court this is only alleged, not proven.
On the post: Minnesota May Be First State To Pass A Right To Repair Law
Re:
So does the farmer, and the Iphone user, and the Ipod user, and...etc.....Oh, and the freelance/independent repair professional.
The manufacturers could adjust their business models and satisfy the customers, rather than investors, and create a whole 'new' method of commerce.
Next >>