Re: Re: FLOC this! "Google shift[s] away from individual ..
I don't get it.. So you don't like tracking, techdirt posts an article that agrees fully with your view that tracking is happening and is bad, and you have a beef because it isn't about google?
"The fact that a Facebook user has a mailing address, or an email address, or a Twitter handle, does not change the fact that to get to that Facebook user account, one must go through Facebook"
Yes but it's not a walled garden over the users, it's a walled garden over facebook. You only need to go through facebook to get to the users to the extent that you want to use their association with facebook to get to them. It's no different from wanting to sell independent wares at disneyland. You didn't earn that business, those people came for facebook.
"Mike has written a fair amount about it."
I'm familiar. Like I say, I don't see it happening, but I see nothing stopping anyone from trying it and I'd be happy to be proven wrong,
In the U.S. they are considered "domestic dependent nations" and officially subject to the U.S. gov and under the U.S. legal system. Doesn't sound like enough to meet the criteria for international law of being "fully independent and determining its own affairs" to be actually considered sovereign
Can't see how you would argue it's a gate to the users themselves.. You mean like for the ad vendors? The users are real people and can be accessed in all many of ways. Unless you do something like say people like to go to disneyland so disneyland is a gate to those people, but thats backwards in my opinion.. People go to google/disneyland, it's not google/disneyland putting up a fence around people and charging an entrance fee to ad. vendors
If you limit to only social media you could maybe says it's a gate to the stuff those people have posted on that service, but it's not like anyone is prevented from repeating it elsewhere, just directly accessing the particular data these guys are paying through the nose to facilitate and house..
Protocol model sounds nice, but not particularly realistic, someone has to front the infrastructure costs for storage and bandwidth, they aren't going to be able to do it just so someone else can make a frontend so they pay none of the costs and then run less ads
But maybe I'm wrong, if someone thinks they can do it better than the current guys I'm certainly not going to stop them, nice thing is nothing is stopping them from trying.
But it sounds like nothing is preventing the market from functioning as it should. There is healthy competition in weather apps and low barrier to entry for new guys to step up and serve their needs better, so if consumers of weather apps are unhappy they will move to other companies, start new companies create pressure on apple to better meet their needs.
Antitrust is needed when the regular corrective market forces can't work to heal those sort of bumps and bruises
They like to call them gatekeepers, but no one seems to talk about what the supposed gates they are keeping are supposed to be providing access to.. You don't need to go through any of these big tech guys to get to anything except to their own services. Closest thing I could think of might be the comments people post on their sites? It's not like they are preventing people from getting them from elsewhere.. Are they supposed to be keeping the gate.. to the service that facebook made that people choose to use? Is it like the gate to get in the amazon store? Has anyone actually tried to justify calling them gatekeepers or they just hope it sticks and people don't ask questions
"Same thing applies to Android ... Just try to buy a device made for the US market"
Sorry I'm not from the U.S., from Canada but every non apple device I have ever purchased has an unlocked bootloader, and have installed a replacement O.S. any time the manufacturer O.S. support started sucking for the device. The only ones I have seen that are locked are the ones where you get cheap phones in exchange for being locked to a carrier, and then they are bound to unlock such for you once you are out of dept.
I see no argument whatsoever against google. Nothing forcing anyone to use their play store and the only "control" they to the extent that people want to make use of the benefit the play provides by screening apps and making them convenient to install. Google "strongly discourages" is, I think a bit misleading. They take no action to prevent anyone from making their own app store, which others have done.. They warn about security issues with sideloading, but they are really just the messenger in that scenario
Apple is a different story as they are forcing people to use their app store, and you can't circumvent it without suffering consequences from apple
"it's their system" well It's shouldn't be their system once you give them your 600$ for it
"the Navy doesn't really have any way to argue back that it complied with the implied license"
They would presumably have as much of a way to argue that it complied as Bitmanagement would have a way to argue that they did not comply with the implied license unless Bitmanagement was keeping track itself.
Don't forget all the infrastructure that they already have that they got with that past public money that they now control access to. Just up the price for using it to whatever they want, what are people going to do? Get the government to gift them billions and make their network running parallel to AT&T?
"Now, if we want to grant the CIA more credibility than it actually deserves, we can read this Executive Order citation as a barely coded message: of course the CIA doesn't have records pertaining to assassination attempts"
I was thinking more along the lines of "anything we give you on this by definition would incriminate us and we aren't going to take action to incriminate ourselves regardless of the FOIA"
I wondered who Microsoft had to blow to get off the "big tech" hit list.. guess it was murdoch
"these tech gatekeepers" is a sad joke of disinformation. There aren't even any gates to keep. You can go straight to any site you want, you could before whatever big tech company you are talking about and you still can. "These tech" are popular because of the service they provide not because anyone needs to go through them to get elsewhere. No one needs to go through them to get elsewhere, thats just a lie.
I think it's not that a large number aren't fine with nudity or even enjoy, it's that they aren't as offended by not having nudity on facebook as the prudes are offended by having it.
I think facebook thinks a tit has more of a chance to cause a some prudes to leave or cause fuss in the news to make others leave than not having it will cause it from the "fine with nudity" side. Same reason they are caving to republicans asking them to manipulate discussion towards bullshit and conspiracy theories for them. Whiny wheel gets the grease
Not that I want to validate that idea that TOS have any real meaning whatsoever,
but I don't think facebook TOS requires you to be an adult, just 13 or something?
At any rate, it's not that people want to "abdicate responsibility for their comfort", it's the opposite. Facebook knows people will take such responsibility upon themselves and will potentially leave if they aren't comfortable on facebook. They only care about keeping customers eyes on ads, so they target lowest common comfort denominator and thats no nudity.
Re: So, Facebook will enforce the LATEST "official" information.
A) They shouldn't.. and can't, obviously got no power to censor.. Just some guys running a website you have no right to use to begin with, they have no authority over anything except themselves.
B) Nope whether you call them a publisher or not is meaningless. Hit someone in the head with a hammer? liable. Made the hammer? not liable.
"When someone is given no choice but to cooperate with law enforcement officers, they can't truly be considered "free to go."
Weren't they seized when they were pulled over?
Does someone think as a passenger of a car told to pull over that you would get away with just getting out and walking away freely at that point but this changes if they tell you to keep your hands visible?
On the post: It's Not Just Republican State Legislators Pushing Unconstitutional Content Moderation Bills
Re: Oh boy
Sure but it will get shot down in the... oh wait the supreme court is a crap shoot now.. nevermind
On the post: T-Mobile The Latest Snooping Company To Pretend 'Anonymized' Data Means Anything
Re: Re: FLOC this! "Google shift[s] away from individual ..
I don't get it.. So you don't like tracking, techdirt posts an article that agrees fully with your view that tracking is happening and is bad, and you have a beef because it isn't about google?
On the post: Misguided Crusade For Tech Antitrust Will Exacerbate Inequality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The fact that a Facebook user has a mailing address, or an email address, or a Twitter handle, does not change the fact that to get to that Facebook user account, one must go through Facebook"
Yes but it's not a walled garden over the users, it's a walled garden over facebook. You only need to go through facebook to get to the users to the extent that you want to use their association with facebook to get to them. It's no different from wanting to sell independent wares at disneyland. You didn't earn that business, those people came for facebook.
"Mike has written a fair amount about it."
I'm familiar. Like I say, I don't see it happening, but I see nothing stopping anyone from trying it and I'd be happy to be proven wrong,
On the post: New York Court Reminds Native American Tribe That Suing For Libel Isn't An Option For Government Agencies
Re: Re: Re:
In the U.S. they are considered "domestic dependent nations" and officially subject to the U.S. gov and under the U.S. legal system. Doesn't sound like enough to meet the criteria for international law of being "fully independent and determining its own affairs" to be actually considered sovereign
On the post: Misguided Crusade For Tech Antitrust Will Exacerbate Inequality
Re: Re:
Can't see how you would argue it's a gate to the users themselves.. You mean like for the ad vendors? The users are real people and can be accessed in all many of ways. Unless you do something like say people like to go to disneyland so disneyland is a gate to those people, but thats backwards in my opinion.. People go to google/disneyland, it's not google/disneyland putting up a fence around people and charging an entrance fee to ad. vendors
If you limit to only social media you could maybe says it's a gate to the stuff those people have posted on that service, but it's not like anyone is prevented from repeating it elsewhere, just directly accessing the particular data these guys are paying through the nose to facilitate and house..
Protocol model sounds nice, but not particularly realistic, someone has to front the infrastructure costs for storage and bandwidth, they aren't going to be able to do it just so someone else can make a frontend so they pay none of the costs and then run less ads
But maybe I'm wrong, if someone thinks they can do it better than the current guys I'm certainly not going to stop them, nice thing is nothing is stopping them from trying.
On the post: Misguided Crusade For Tech Antitrust Will Exacerbate Inequality
Re:
But it sounds like nothing is preventing the market from functioning as it should. There is healthy competition in weather apps and low barrier to entry for new guys to step up and serve their needs better, so if consumers of weather apps are unhappy they will move to other companies, start new companies create pressure on apple to better meet their needs.
Antitrust is needed when the regular corrective market forces can't work to heal those sort of bumps and bruises
On the post: Misguided Crusade For Tech Antitrust Will Exacerbate Inequality
They like to call them gatekeepers, but no one seems to talk about what the supposed gates they are keeping are supposed to be providing access to.. You don't need to go through any of these big tech guys to get to anything except to their own services. Closest thing I could think of might be the comments people post on their sites? It's not like they are preventing people from getting them from elsewhere.. Are they supposed to be keeping the gate.. to the service that facebook made that people choose to use? Is it like the gate to get in the amazon store? Has anyone actually tried to justify calling them gatekeepers or they just hope it sticks and people don't ask questions
On the post: Arizona Moves Forward With Law To Force Google & Apple To Open Up Payments In App Stores
Re: Re:
"Same thing applies to Android ... Just try to buy a device made for the US market"
Sorry I'm not from the U.S., from Canada but every non apple device I have ever purchased has an unlocked bootloader, and have installed a replacement O.S. any time the manufacturer O.S. support started sucking for the device. The only ones I have seen that are locked are the ones where you get cheap phones in exchange for being locked to a carrier, and then they are bound to unlock such for you once you are out of dept.
On the post: Parler Drops Its Loser Of A Lawsuit Against Amazon In Federal Court, Files Equally Dumb New Lawsuit In State Court
Re: Re: Re: Re: Remember, disagreement is not violence
Many other leftists who got banned were impersonating Trump.
Probably the most transparently bullshit excuse you can find
On the post: Arizona Moves Forward With Law To Force Google & Apple To Open Up Payments In App Stores
I see no argument whatsoever against google. Nothing forcing anyone to use their play store and the only "control" they to the extent that people want to make use of the benefit the play provides by screening apps and making them convenient to install. Google "strongly discourages" is, I think a bit misleading. They take no action to prevent anyone from making their own app store, which others have done.. They warn about security issues with sideloading, but they are really just the messenger in that scenario
Apple is a different story as they are forcing people to use their app store, and you can't circumvent it without suffering consequences from apple
"it's their system" well It's shouldn't be their system once you give them your 600$ for it
On the post: US Navy On The Hook For 'Pirating' German Company's Software
"the Navy doesn't really have any way to argue back that it complied with the implied license"
They would presumably have as much of a way to argue that it complied as Bitmanagement would have a way to argue that they did not comply with the implied license unless Bitmanagement was keeping track itself.
On the post: AT&T Spins Off DirecTV After Losing Billions On Its TV Dreams
Re:
Don't forget all the infrastructure that they already have that they got with that past public money that they now control access to. Just up the price for using it to whatever they want, what are people going to do? Get the government to gift them billions and make their network running parallel to AT&T?
On the post: CIA To FOIA Requester: Assassination Attempts Are Illegal So Of Course We Don't Have Any Records About Our Illegal Assassination Attempts
"Now, if we want to grant the CIA more credibility than it actually deserves, we can read this Executive Order citation as a barely coded message: of course the CIA doesn't have records pertaining to assassination attempts"
I was thinking more along the lines of "anything we give you on this by definition would incriminate us and we aren't going to take action to incriminate ourselves regardless of the FOIA"
On the post: AT&T Spins Off DirecTV After Losing Billions On Its TV Dreams
Unfortunately, if AT&T suffers, they will just get bailed out or buy some legislation to make google pay them a stripend or something
On the post: Microsoft Attacks The Open Web Because It's Jealous Of Google's Success
I wondered who Microsoft had to blow to get off the "big tech" hit list.. guess it was murdoch
"these tech gatekeepers" is a sad joke of disinformation. There aren't even any gates to keep. You can go straight to any site you want, you could before whatever big tech company you are talking about and you still can. "These tech" are popular because of the service they provide not because anyone needs to go through them to get elsewhere. No one needs to go through them to get elsewhere, thats just a lie.
On the post: The Most Important Part Of The Facebook / Oversight Board Interaction Happened Last Week And Almost No One Cared
Re: Re: Re:
I think it's not that a large number aren't fine with nudity or even enjoy, it's that they aren't as offended by not having nudity on facebook as the prudes are offended by having it.
I think facebook thinks a tit has more of a chance to cause a some prudes to leave or cause fuss in the news to make others leave than not having it will cause it from the "fine with nudity" side. Same reason they are caving to republicans asking them to manipulate discussion towards bullshit and conspiracy theories for them. Whiny wheel gets the grease
On the post: The Unasked Question In Tech Policy: Where Do We Get The Lawyers?
Don't they just come from Oracle?
On the post: The Most Important Part Of The Facebook / Oversight Board Interaction Happened Last Week And Almost No One Cared
Re:
Not that I want to validate that idea that TOS have any real meaning whatsoever,
but I don't think facebook TOS requires you to be an adult, just 13 or something?
At any rate, it's not that people want to "abdicate responsibility for their comfort", it's the opposite. Facebook knows people will take such responsibility upon themselves and will potentially leave if they aren't comfortable on facebook. They only care about keeping customers eyes on ads, so they target lowest common comfort denominator and thats no nudity.
On the post: The Most Important Part Of The Facebook / Oversight Board Interaction Happened Last Week And Almost No One Cared
Re: So, Facebook will enforce the LATEST "official" information.
A) They shouldn't.. and can't, obviously got no power to censor.. Just some guys running a website you have no right to use to begin with, they have no authority over anything except themselves.
B) Nope whether you call them a publisher or not is meaningless. Hit someone in the head with a hammer? liable. Made the hammer? not liable.
On the post: Oregon Court: A Stop So Pretexual Cops Forgot About The Pretext Is A Rights Violation
"When someone is given no choice but to cooperate with law enforcement officers, they can't truly be considered "free to go."
Weren't they seized when they were pulled over?
Does someone think as a passenger of a car told to pull over that you would get away with just getting out and walking away freely at that point but this changes if they tell you to keep your hands visible?
Next >>