And how do you get out of the rabbit-hole of reporting where one person wants facts and the other person is so dug into conspiracy theories that they can't see a way out?
It goes something like this:
Person 1: Alex Jones says China is going to bomb us.
Person 2: What?! There's no truth to that story.
Person 1: That's what they want you to think.
Person 2: Then cite one source that says it's true.
Person 1: Get with it man, the government won't let people talk about this. That's why there are no stories about it.
Person 2: So you don't have one source for this?
Person 1: Wake up, people- the world is ending around you. (And by the way, please buy the products of the following sponsors of this show.)
The root issue is that that telco companies can't stop robocalls because they don't want to. And why don't they want to? Become someone, somewhere along the line is making money of the connections that the phone makes. Do you really think AT&T doesn't know that the robo-call comes from a burner phone going through their cell tower in California?
If there were 4.9 billion robo-calls placed in April, how much money do companies like AT&T get per call? Let's say 1/2 a cent. That's $24.5 million! For basically doing nothing.
It would be interesting if an investigative reporter could find some actual numbers about how much the telcos get for connecting robo-calls. Maybe we'd see some change if this created (more) public outrage.
You forgot law enforcement's favorite phrase to add on additional charges: "with a computer".
"This teenager stole a candy bar from a store, also he committed money laundering and conspiracy."
Okay, give him a few years in prison for the conspiracy charge,
"This teenager stole a candy bar from a store, also he committed money laundering and conspiracy... with a computer."
OMG!! He's one of them hacker types! Life sentence!!
Then there's the issue of whether nudity is acceptable in artwork. If that happens, who will be the judge as to whether the artwork is "artistic"?
On a related note, I went to Florence recently and took pictures of Michaelangelo's David (in the Accedemia dell'Arte) and of the Sistine Chapel (showing a nude Adam). Yet the photos are still up!
So either someone at Facebook recognizes the photos of classical artwork or the photos don't have naked female breasts, or (more likely) no one complained that they were "indecent".
Changing the subject:
If companies can't compete with free, then why is iTunes still making millions (or billions) from music sales? It's very easy to download a mp3 file from a pirate site.
But like this site has said over and over, customers will pay for an experience if it's easy, convenient, and good quality. In this case, it's a lot easier to click on the iTunes app and buy a song than it is to search for the song on a pirate site, download a file-sharing app, download the song, hope it doesn't have a virus, and then copy it to the phone.
And according to the RIAA and MPAA and others, the only metric that matters is how many times you fired. Look how successful you were in taking all these shots/ issuing all those takedown notices!
(Who cares if you missed the target/ issued takedowns for the wrong thing.)
Can the councilman (or anyone else) send out a C&D order while their trademark application is still pending? What right does he have to send a C&D if the trademark office could (rightfully and legally) turn down his request? On what grounds can anyone trademark the seal of a city?
Could the city, "to prove a point", turn around and sue him for trademark bullying?
I know this comes across as a conspiracy theory, but I wonder if this was done on purpose.
Did someone in charge say: how can we increase fines... I know, blame it on a buggy system. But the system isn't due to start until May? No problem, just push the release date up to the previous December. What's an extra 6 months in software development, am I right? We don't need beta testing- we'll use the public for that.
I've said it before with stories like this and I'll said it again:
The lawyers filing this case either:
1) Don't know the law saying Twitter can't be held responsible for user content.
2) Does know, but chooses to ignore previous case law and bill the client.
Either way, these lawyers should start getting some kind of sanctions thrown at them. Disbarment may be too strict, but how about a mark on their record to show other judges that the law firm can't be trusted to follow the law.
Admittedly, I didn't click on the links and read the related stories, but what issue is ICE supposed to be solving? Why is it a problem for people to be able to legally stay in a country while they're going to school? Is ICE saying the foreigners taking spaces away from native citizens?
And as usual, doesn't ICE have better things to do with their resources? Or are they getting bored since so many people are complaining about illegal border searches?
Just one person to remove all content from reporters
Here's a huge hole in his idea that I came up with in the time I took me to read his tweet:
Hire one person -just one- to search for the New Zealand shooting and delete anything that's returned.
Okay, good bye BBC reporting. Good bye CNN, MSNC, and Fox videos reporting on it.
Good bye media websites.
Good bye to users sharing videos from the BBC, CNN, and so on. (And don't forget that these users will get a black mark on their record for sharing illegal content.)
Because remember that this "just one" person doesn't have a supervisor or anyone else to help him make judgment calls. His job is to delete everything.
Maybe the whole point of these takedowns is to make sure no one knows that the leaked shows are leaked from screeners.
After all, hasn't the industry told us that piracy comes from cam-corded version of movies? Now how will they explain piracy when their own screeners are doing it?
I fully suspect more takedown notices will go out when sites like TorrentFreak figure out who the screeners are.
A number of years ago, I got hit with adware served via a banner ad in Yahoo Mail. Obviously Yahoo claimed it wasn't their fault, but how did they let malware into their advertising network?
Luckily, I was able to do a system restore and I didn't lose anything, but it was still scary to think I could lose everything on my computer because of a banner ad at Yahoo!
I immediately switched to Firefox with an ad blocker and I block 99% of ads. No more Yahoo Mail ads, no more GMail ads (even if they were relevant), and no more Facebook ads (even if some of those are relevant also). I also block ads at art sites like DeviantArt and ArtStation because I'm that distrustful of ads.
Setting a ringtone or flagging a call as spam isn't the solution, simply because this solution only works for you. What about the other millions of people who haven't set a ringtone? And even then, the call is still going through to your phone and the robo-calls could easily fill up your voicemail.
The real solution is to stop these calls at the source. And I agree that there needs to be a media push to figure out how much money the telcos make by connecting robo-calls to people. Even if it's 1 cent per call, 4.9 billion calls comes out to $49 MILLION... in just February alone!
And you can't tell me the telcos don't know where the robo-call comes from since they're obviously connecting one phone to another.
On the flip side - some TV shows have received theatrical screenings before their TV debut.
Off the top of my head, I can think of three: Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, Battlestar Galactica (1978), and Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008). These were absolutely eligible for Oscars even though they were technically pilot episodes of TV shows. If they were shown on TV, should they not be elgible for an Emmy?
I can imagine the thinking goes something like this:
Sir, we're losing more sales to online stores every quarter. How do we make the customer shopping experience better?
I know, let's add facial recognition software and kick out anyone who gets flagged, even if they didn't do anything. I'm sure they won't tell anyone on social media about their experience.
If the government says you can't say something, we call it censorship. But what do we call it when companies won't associate with someone who says something they don't like?
Does the company have the first amendment right not to support someone? Then what about the author's first amendment rights?
But in this case, no one is stopping her from writing her articles- she just can't make money off them as before. This segues into a discussion about how she should reading articles (on this very site!) about how to make money from free items. :)
Law-maker: Here's a new law that will protect journalists.
Anyone else: But there are plenty of existing laws that work fine.
Law-maker: So you're against protecting journalists? You want them to get beat up, attacked, or worse? What kind of monster are you? Next you'll be saying FOSTA doesn't help victims of sex trafficking!
On the post: And Now The Prime Minister Of Canada Is Threatening To Fine Social Media Companies Over 'Fake News'
Real news versus conspiracy theory
And how do you get out of the rabbit-hole of reporting where one person wants facts and the other person is so dug into conspiracy theories that they can't see a way out?
It goes something like this:
Person 1: Alex Jones says China is going to bomb us.
Person 2: What?! There's no truth to that story.
Person 1: That's what they want you to think.
Person 2: Then cite one source that says it's true.
Person 1: Get with it man, the government won't let people talk about this. That's why there are no stories about it.
Person 2: So you don't have one source for this?
Person 1: Wake up, people- the world is ending around you. (And by the way, please buy the products of the following sponsors of this show.)
On the post: Pai FCC 'Solution' To Nation's Great Robocall Apocalypse? More Meetings
Robo-calls make money for the telcos
The root issue is that that telco companies can't stop robocalls because they don't want to. And why don't they want to? Become someone, somewhere along the line is making money of the connections that the phone makes. Do you really think AT&T doesn't know that the robo-call comes from a burner phone going through their cell tower in California?
If there were 4.9 billion robo-calls placed in April, how much money do companies like AT&T get per call? Let's say 1/2 a cent. That's $24.5 million! For basically doing nothing.
It would be interesting if an investigative reporter could find some actual numbers about how much the telcos get for connecting robo-calls. Maybe we'd see some change if this created (more) public outrage.
On the post: Apples Only For Apple: Apple Opposes A German Bicycle Path
Apple Macintosh
I can see why Apple is going down this path.
Just the other day, I was in the supermarket and a sign sad "Apple Macintosh on sale". Sweet! I could use a new laptop.
But to my disappointment, the store was selling fruit! How misleading!
On the post: FBI And Half The World Bust Operators Of A Site That Made The Dark Web Searchable
Re:
You forgot law enforcement's favorite phrase to add on additional charges: "with a computer".
"This teenager stole a candy bar from a store, also he committed money laundering and conspiracy."
Okay, give him a few years in prison for the conspiracy charge,
"This teenager stole a candy bar from a store, also he committed money laundering and conspiracy... with a computer."
OMG!! He's one of them hacker types! Life sentence!!
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Facebook Still Can't Figure Out How To Deal With Naked Breasts
What about artwork
Then there's the issue of whether nudity is acceptable in artwork. If that happens, who will be the judge as to whether the artwork is "artistic"?
On a related note, I went to Florence recently and took pictures of Michaelangelo's David (in the Accedemia dell'Arte) and of the Sistine Chapel (showing a nude Adam). Yet the photos are still up!
So either someone at Facebook recognizes the photos of classical artwork or the photos don't have naked female breasts, or (more likely) no one complained that they were "indecent".
On the post: Watch: The Latest Avengers Movie Is Already On Torrent Sites, But That Won't Stop A Torrent Of Sold Theater Tickets
You can't compete with free
Changing the subject:
If companies can't compete with free, then why is iTunes still making millions (or billions) from music sales? It's very easy to download a mp3 file from a pirate site.
But like this site has said over and over, customers will pay for an experience if it's easy, convenient, and good quality. In this case, it's a lot easier to click on the iTunes app and buy a song than it is to search for the song on a pirate site, download a file-sharing app, download the song, hope it doesn't have a virus, and then copy it to the phone.
On the post: Universal And Warner Block Time Live Streaming Its Time 100 Event Because Copyright Censors
Re: EU trying to get things right is like:
And according to the RIAA and MPAA and others, the only metric that matters is how many times you fired. Look how successful you were in taking all these shots/ issuing all those takedown notices!
(Who cares if you missed the target/ issued takedowns for the wrong thing.)
On the post: City Of Marathon Hand-Waves Stupid Cease And Desist Sent By Councilman Over City Seal
Can he even send a C&D?
Can the councilman (or anyone else) send out a C&D order while their trademark application is still pending? What right does he have to send a C&D if the trademark office could (rightfully and legally) turn down his request? On what grounds can anyone trademark the seal of a city?
Could the city, "to prove a point", turn around and sue him for trademark bullying?
On the post: Watchdog Says Australia's Traffic Enforcement System Has Hits Hundreds Of Drivers With Bogus Fines
Conspiracy theory
I know this comes across as a conspiracy theory, but I wonder if this was done on purpose.
Did someone in charge say: how can we increase fines... I know, blame it on a buggy system. But the system isn't due to start until May? No problem, just push the release date up to the previous December. What's an extra 6 months in software development, am I right? We don't need beta testing- we'll use the public for that.
On the post: Another Attempt To Tie Twitter To Terrorist Acts And Another Dismissal With Prejudice
Sanction these lawyers
I've said it before with stories like this and I'll said it again:
The lawyers filing this case either:
1) Don't know the law saying Twitter can't be held responsible for user content.
2) Does know, but chooses to ignore previous case law and bill the client.
Either way, these lawyers should start getting some kind of sanctions thrown at them. Disbarment may be too strict, but how about a mark on their record to show other judges that the law firm can't be trusted to follow the law.
On the post: ICE's Fake University Sting Operation Also Used A Bunch Of Fake Facebook Profiles
What's the issue to be solved?
Admittedly, I didn't click on the links and read the related stories, but what issue is ICE supposed to be solving? Why is it a problem for people to be able to legally stay in a country while they're going to school? Is ICE saying the foreigners taking spaces away from native citizens?
And as usual, doesn't ICE have better things to do with their resources? Or are they getting bored since so many people are complaining about illegal border searches?
On the post: No, YouTube Cannot Reasonably Moderate All Content On Its Platform
Just one person to remove all content from reporters
Here's a huge hole in his idea that I came up with in the time I took me to read his tweet:
Hire one person -just one- to search for the New Zealand shooting and delete anything that's returned.
Okay, good bye BBC reporting. Good bye CNN, MSNC, and Fox videos reporting on it.
Good bye media websites.
Good bye to users sharing videos from the BBC, CNN, and so on. (And don't forget that these users will get a black mark on their record for sharing illegal content.)
Because remember that this "just one" person doesn't have a supervisor or anyone else to help him make judgment calls. His job is to delete everything.
On the post: The End Of The Absurdity: Iceland, The Country, Successfully Invalidates The Trademark Of Iceland Foods, The Grocer
Re:
How about "disoriented" and "disorientated"? Don't they both mean being confused or dizzy? Or is one fancier since it has more syllables?
On the post: Starz Really, Really Doesn't Want You To Know That TorrentFreak Wrote About Leaked Shows, Or That Anyone Tweeted About It
Kill the messenger?
Maybe the whole point of these takedowns is to make sure no one knows that the leaked shows are leaked from screeners.
After all, hasn't the industry told us that piracy comes from cam-corded version of movies? Now how will they explain piracy when their own screeners are doing it?
I fully suspect more takedown notices will go out when sites like TorrentFreak figure out who the screeners are.
On the post: German Publishing Giant Claims Blocking Ads Is Copyright Infringement, In Yet Another Lawsuit Against The Industry Leader
Re:
A number of years ago, I got hit with adware served via a banner ad in Yahoo Mail. Obviously Yahoo claimed it wasn't their fault, but how did they let malware into their advertising network?
Luckily, I was able to do a system restore and I didn't lose anything, but it was still scary to think I could lose everything on my computer because of a banner ad at Yahoo!
I immediately switched to Firefox with an ad blocker and I block 99% of ads. No more Yahoo Mail ads, no more GMail ads (even if they were relevant), and no more Facebook ads (even if some of those are relevant also). I also block ads at art sites like DeviantArt and ArtStation because I'm that distrustful of ads.
On the post: Just $6,790 Of $208 Million In Robocall Fines Have Been Collected By The FCC
Need to block the calls at their source
Setting a ringtone or flagging a call as spam isn't the solution, simply because this solution only works for you. What about the other millions of people who haven't set a ringtone? And even then, the call is still going through to your phone and the robo-calls could easily fill up your voicemail.
The real solution is to stop these calls at the source. And I agree that there needs to be a media push to figure out how much money the telcos make by connecting robo-calls to people. Even if it's 1 cent per call, 4.9 billion calls comes out to $49 MILLION... in just February alone!
And you can't tell me the telcos don't know where the robo-call comes from since they're obviously connecting one phone to another.
On the post: DOJ Warns Academy That Being An Anti-Streaming Luddite Could Violate Antitrust
Re: Re: The point everyone is missing..
On the flip side - some TV shows have received theatrical screenings before their TV debut.
Off the top of my head, I can think of three: Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, Battlestar Galactica (1978), and Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008). These were absolutely eligible for Oscars even though they were technically pilot episodes of TV shows. If they were shown on TV, should they not be elgible for an Emmy?
On the post: Facial Recognition Tech Now Capable Of Getting You Kicked Out Of The Mall
Yep, this'll get people to shop more at the mall
I can imagine the thinking goes something like this:
Sir, we're losing more sales to online stores every quarter. How do we make the customer shopping experience better?
I know, let's add facial recognition software and kick out anyone who gets flagged, even if they didn't do anything. I'm sure they won't tell anyone on social media about their experience.
On the post: Welcome To The Prude Internet: No More Sex Talk Allowed
Is this censorship
If the government says you can't say something, we call it censorship. But what do we call it when companies won't associate with someone who says something they don't like?
Does the company have the first amendment right not to support someone? Then what about the author's first amendment rights?
But in this case, no one is stopping her from writing her articles- she just can't make money off them as before. This segues into a discussion about how she should reading articles (on this very site!) about how to make money from free items. :)
On the post: Stupid Law Making Assaulting Journalists A Federal Crime Revived By Congress
If you're not with us, you're against us
Law-maker: Here's a new law that will protect journalists.
Anyone else: But there are plenty of existing laws that work fine.
Law-maker: So you're against protecting journalists? You want them to get beat up, attacked, or worse? What kind of monster are you? Next you'll be saying FOSTA doesn't help victims of sex trafficking!
Next >>