Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Mar 2019 @ 7:26am
Re: Re: Terrified of dissent, MM provides code here to "hid
We don't expect coherence from this one, but he does like to hear him/herself bloviate, and the more nonsensical the better, from his/her point of view.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Mar 2019 @ 7:17am
Re: shocked?
Well, not communist, but certainly authoritarian. While they practice some broken form of what they call democracy, they appear to be moving to some dictatorial model. When Putin ran out his allowed tenure as President, then seemingly 'appointed' (via various forms of election rigging) a puppet replacement, and then ran again for President, he got around the law but set up a President for life scenario. Making it illegal to criticize the government means that no one will be allowed to do anything to disrupt the continuation of this process, which is certain to be bad for the populace, in the long run if not also currently.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2019 @ 6:08pm
Good luck with the protests, all of them
However, I am concerned that some MEP's are not just as focused on the upcoming election as they are their ideological or monetary connections. From the ideological standpoint, killing user generated content will support their goals for a long time to come, and reelection is just not important. From the monetary standpoint, either the contributions received or the quid pro quo coming may be enough to overcome voter wrath.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Mar 2019 @ 11:37am
Blame society for society, not the messengers
I am still tying to get my head around the fact that there were 1.5+ million people in the world that thought it was a good idea to upload these videos.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Mar 2019 @ 7:38pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" Hosting platforms shall be responsible for collecting all applicable TOTs and remitting the same to the City. The hosting platform shall be considered an agent of the host for purposes of TOT collections and remittance responsibilities as set forth in Chapter 6.68 of this Code."
This seems like an attack on the Internet, rather than a method to make the responsible parties liable for what they are in fact liable for. Why doesn't the law make the property owners liable (as they probably are but given the fast moving consequences of short term rentals difficult to collect)?
The seemingly static aspect of an Internet platform appears to be an easy target as apposed to some property owner who does a few quick and dirty vacation rentals in between their longer term rentals, or something.
Why isn't the law wrong, rather than the platform?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Mar 2019 @ 7:00pm
Re: Re: Re:
When one thinks of AirBNB as a platform things might look a bit different. When one thinks of AirBNB as the rental agent in each and every case things become a bit different.
What I mean is, why is the city holding the platform liable, rather than the property owner? It sure seems the City of Santa Monica is trying to regulate the Web, rather than the rental business within their city.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Mar 2019 @ 6:45pm
These are all good arguments until one realizes that the intent of Articles 11 and 13 are all about shutting those services down.
It appears that, beyond the cash grab by big News and big Copyright institutions, they don't really want individuals to have the ability to say what they want. Otherwise those laws wouldn't be about user generated content, but would be about infringement when the owners couldn't argue fair dealing, as it is called over there.
Link taxes, aka free advertising, aren't about some search engine making money on their content, simply because none of the search engines I use have advertising. So they aren't making money on my search. The question then becomes, did I click on their link or someone else's?
That determination might be because I have some experience with one site or another and trust or don't trust because of that previous experience, or it might be because of what is related in that very short description of the link, which seems in my experience to be taken directly from the article in question. Which leave the onus on the content originator to come up with more believable headlines, along with their ability to use robots.txt to keep their shit to themselves.
That being antithetical to their purpose means they have to do a better job, and that might not comport with their cashflow issues. That leaves them in the position of trying to coerce money from elsewhere, and when they find out that the 'elsewhere's' are not interested in giving them money, but shut them out entirely (as what happened in Spain and Germany) they will scramble and seek other mandates to make their failing business plans workable. Coming up with feasible effort/monitization plans is something that has not come easily in the changeover from dead tree to digital formats, for either news or other copyrighted content. Yet they continue to struggle with regulatory capture rather than right sizing and meeting the demands of the market.
Maybe the newsies don't need to keep investigative journalists on salary, but need to buy stories as they are produced, and at a rate that keeps them producing stories. Maybe the copyright related industries need to find a way to engage independents that benefits the independents as well as themselves without co-opting the copyright of the independents. Neither will experience the revenue or profit they have experienced in the past, but so what? Their investors will cry out loud and dump their stocks wholesale, but again, so what? In the long run, they, after much scrutiny and attempts and more attempts, and maybe more attempts, will become viable again, for themselves, for their investors and for their markets. The dissonance in-between is just a matter of adjustment to a new reality. Something like horse breeders had to go through when Henry Ford developed, not the car, but the production line.
I think that platform liability does relate, and is comparable. They follow the laws put out for them, and those are Federal laws (assuming they are based in the US) because they are interstate rather than local laws.
The difference between some platform checking the registration or title of a car for sale and verifying that the seller was actually the owner is a lot different than a platform reading a lease or sales agreement (assuming those are actually available) and determining legality is huge. The former is possibly possible with some limitations such as the seller telling the truth about their identity. The latter is a question that is not actually discernible by a platform, without a court.
I think the issue is how the 9th Circuit thinks that a local ordinance can overcome Federal law?
Should the rental agreement fit the local laws? Most certainly. The question that the 9th Circuit ignores is how does a platform, chosen by a local business, determine what is or is not legal?
Becoming not only conversant in the local laws of each and every municipality in the US (not to mention the rest of the world) is something not even lawyers expect to arise to. But to assume that a, well lets use a lease for example, lease is legal in all its terms would not only take a lawyer, but likely a court for final determination.
Is the 9th Circuit giving up the court's responsibility in making that final determination, and giving it over to the platforms, or is it suggesting that the platforms second guess what a court might rule? Then, what if a court decides that what the platform determined was actually wrong. Having been forced into making a decision, in hundreds of municipalities, how could they not be wrong sometimes. Which leaves platforms liable for the wrong doings of those that wrote the lease trying to force some illegality upon the renters.
Just because I own a car and pay taxes to maintain the roads does not mean that I am responsible for those bank robbers over there who use not only a car that might be the same make, model, and year as mine, but had the arrogance to use the roads I help to maintain via taxes to effect their getaway, make me liable for their actions.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2019 @ 7:56pm
Re: Re: federal loophole
They might reconsider some of the things they left out of the Constitution, such as privacy, and they might have some different thoughts about other things that were not included in the original document, which leaves out all of the amendments, but includes the concept that some people are only three fifths of a person, even though they owned some of those 3/5's persons at that time.
In fact, just reading those amendments might make them reconsider the original document, and after some discussion and deliberation they might agree that there were some things missed in their original efforts. Or not. Each side of the debate held very strong beliefs, and in a short time, without a complete history of their conclusions, they might or might not change their minds.
Then again, one side might still think an imperial style of government would have been better. That is until they looked at what has happened in the UK.
It is hard to get people off their ideology if beliefs are strongly held, whether those beliefs are rational or not.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2019 @ 6:46pm
Re: federal loophole
Given the arguments between those that wanted an imperial government and those that wanted a more democratic version, I would recommend that none of those brought back not be given a chance to talk to any politician before their testimony. In fact, they should be limited to review only the legislative history of the last, oh say 50 years or so, and not allowed to listen to any rhetoric prior to their speech. That would include not giving the reasons legislation's were proposed, only the results.
Then, as a follow up, give them access to the politicians and the rhetoric and do a second segment where their impugned perspectives are then recorded.
The differences could be significant. And eye opening...well not for some of us, but for many of us. The howling from those that seek power and control would exceed anything the loudest rock concert or jet airplanes could produce.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2019 @ 12:17pm
Re:
Wouldn't that distinction be based upon intent? I know the laws doesn't make that distinction, but that is what is wrong with the law, not what is wrong with a legitimate researcher looking for the kinds of problems found in this app.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2019 @ 7:17am
Re:
I can see it now. Studly white male (a lie) who is wealthier than Croesus (another lie) and younger than Methuselah (not a lie but also not informative) seeks a complete set of Original Star Trek, all three seasons of their five year mission, for non-committal good times (not a lie but a red flag to potential dates).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Mar 2019 @ 11:22am
Do as we say, not as we do!
It astounds me that not just the existence of, but the level of government hypocrisy, continues to astound many others. At this point we should be certain that many, if not all, government action is in the interest of power, not the people.
The primary fuel for that power is money, in the form of 'campaign contributions' and/or job placement after office. The intent of that power is control, and the exuberance that power and control provide to those that hold it. AKA, ego.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Mar 2019 @ 9:18am
Re:
"So right now, the idea of a SEC program that "would simply snuff out any possibility of [new crypto developments] ever happening" is starting to look like a pretty good idea, and not a myopic one at all."
Except when one considers the potential for some government bureaucracy testing something effectively. Given regulatory capture, soft money campaign contributions, etc., the question isn't could, or would some outside influence try to drive the tests one way or another, but how far they would be driven.
Then there is the question of the SEC understanding blockchain (I certainly don't) sufficiently to propose tests that would actually cover all the possibilities of issues, or the advent of newer technology that might mitigate whatever they come up with.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Mar 2019 @ 6:09pm
Re:
OK, you hate Apple, we get that. You don't seem to like the media either, and BTW, not all of them are bad. But what does any of what you said have to do with the article extant?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Mar 2019 @ 6:04pm
Re:
1.888.930.9272.
Floor64, Inc.
370 Convention Way
Redwood City, CA 94063
What, you think Mike has time to go home with all he's involved in? You know, he has been accused of writing all these comments as well as all the other things.
On the post: Terrified Of The Internet, Putin Signs Laws Making It Illegal To Criticize Government Leaders Online
Re: Re: Terrified of dissent, MM provides code here to "hid
We don't expect coherence from this one, but he does like to hear him/herself bloviate, and the more nonsensical the better, from his/her point of view.
On the post: Terrified Of The Internet, Putin Signs Laws Making It Illegal To Criticize Government Leaders Online
Re: shocked?
Well, not communist, but certainly authoritarian. While they practice some broken form of what they call democracy, they appear to be moving to some dictatorial model. When Putin ran out his allowed tenure as President, then seemingly 'appointed' (via various forms of election rigging) a puppet replacement, and then ran again for President, he got around the law but set up a President for life scenario. Making it illegal to criticize the government means that no one will be allowed to do anything to disrupt the continuation of this process, which is certain to be bad for the populace, in the long run if not also currently.
On the post: Internet Blackout Coming To Show The EU Parliament It's Not Just 'Bots' Concerned About Article 13
Good luck with the protests, all of them
However, I am concerned that some MEP's are not just as focused on the upcoming election as they are their ideological or monetary connections. From the ideological standpoint, killing user generated content will support their goals for a long time to come, and reelection is just not important. From the monetary standpoint, either the contributions received or the quid pro quo coming may be enough to overcome voter wrath.
On the post: Apple Objects To Norway Political Party's Logo Claiming Potential Customer Confusion Over Trademark
Re: Re:
Which original sin, Apple's or the Bible's?
On the post: If You Think Big Internet Companies Are Somehow To Blame For The New Zealand Massacre, You're Wrong
Blame society for society, not the messengers
I am still tying to get my head around the fact that there were 1.5+ million people in the world that thought it was a good idea to upload these videos.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Online Services: Section 230 Isn't For You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This seems like an attack on the Internet, rather than a method to make the responsible parties liable for what they are in fact liable for. Why doesn't the law make the property owners liable (as they probably are but given the fast moving consequences of short term rentals difficult to collect)?
The seemingly static aspect of an Internet platform appears to be an easy target as apposed to some property owner who does a few quick and dirty vacation rentals in between their longer term rentals, or something.
Why isn't the law wrong, rather than the platform?
On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Online Services: Section 230 Isn't For You
Re: Re: Re:
When one thinks of AirBNB as a platform things might look a bit different. When one thinks of AirBNB as the rental agent in each and every case things become a bit different.
What I mean is, why is the city holding the platform liable, rather than the property owner? It sure seems the City of Santa Monica is trying to regulate the Web, rather than the rental business within their city.
On the post: The 2012 Web Blackout Helped Stop SOPA/PIPA And Then ACTA; Here Comes The 2019 Version To Stop Article 13
These are all good arguments until one realizes that the intent of Articles 11 and 13 are all about shutting those services down.
It appears that, beyond the cash grab by big News and big Copyright institutions, they don't really want individuals to have the ability to say what they want. Otherwise those laws wouldn't be about user generated content, but would be about infringement when the owners couldn't argue fair dealing, as it is called over there.
Link taxes, aka free advertising, aren't about some search engine making money on their content, simply because none of the search engines I use have advertising. So they aren't making money on my search. The question then becomes, did I click on their link or someone else's?
That determination might be because I have some experience with one site or another and trust or don't trust because of that previous experience, or it might be because of what is related in that very short description of the link, which seems in my experience to be taken directly from the article in question. Which leave the onus on the content originator to come up with more believable headlines, along with their ability to use robots.txt to keep their shit to themselves.
That being antithetical to their purpose means they have to do a better job, and that might not comport with their cashflow issues. That leaves them in the position of trying to coerce money from elsewhere, and when they find out that the 'elsewhere's' are not interested in giving them money, but shut them out entirely (as what happened in Spain and Germany) they will scramble and seek other mandates to make their failing business plans workable. Coming up with feasible effort/monitization plans is something that has not come easily in the changeover from dead tree to digital formats, for either news or other copyrighted content. Yet they continue to struggle with regulatory capture rather than right sizing and meeting the demands of the market.
Maybe the newsies don't need to keep investigative journalists on salary, but need to buy stories as they are produced, and at a rate that keeps them producing stories. Maybe the copyright related industries need to find a way to engage independents that benefits the independents as well as themselves without co-opting the copyright of the independents. Neither will experience the revenue or profit they have experienced in the past, but so what? Their investors will cry out loud and dump their stocks wholesale, but again, so what? In the long run, they, after much scrutiny and attempts and more attempts, and maybe more attempts, will become viable again, for themselves, for their investors and for their markets. The dissonance in-between is just a matter of adjustment to a new reality. Something like horse breeders had to go through when Henry Ford developed, not the car, but the production line.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Online Services: Section 230 Isn't For You
Re: Re: Margarine melts at 110π©, and butter at 98.6π©, feel
I think that platform liability does relate, and is comparable. They follow the laws put out for them, and those are Federal laws (assuming they are based in the US) because they are interstate rather than local laws.
The difference between some platform checking the registration or title of a car for sale and verifying that the seller was actually the owner is a lot different than a platform reading a lease or sales agreement (assuming those are actually available) and determining legality is huge. The former is possibly possible with some limitations such as the seller telling the truth about their identity. The latter is a question that is not actually discernible by a platform, without a court.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Tells Online Services: Section 230 Isn't For You
Margarine melts at 110π©, and butter at 98.6π©, feel that?
I think the issue is how the 9th Circuit thinks that a local ordinance can overcome Federal law?
Should the rental agreement fit the local laws? Most certainly. The question that the 9th Circuit ignores is how does a platform, chosen by a local business, determine what is or is not legal?
Becoming not only conversant in the local laws of each and every municipality in the US (not to mention the rest of the world) is something not even lawyers expect to arise to. But to assume that a, well lets use a lease for example, lease is legal in all its terms would not only take a lawyer, but likely a court for final determination.
Is the 9th Circuit giving up the court's responsibility in making that final determination, and giving it over to the platforms, or is it suggesting that the platforms second guess what a court might rule? Then, what if a court decides that what the platform determined was actually wrong. Having been forced into making a decision, in hundreds of municipalities, how could they not be wrong sometimes. Which leaves platforms liable for the wrong doings of those that wrote the lease trying to force some illegality upon the renters.
Just because I own a car and pay taxes to maintain the roads does not mean that I am responsible for those bank robbers over there who use not only a car that might be the same make, model, and year as mine, but had the arrogance to use the roads I help to maintain via taxes to effect their getaway, make me liable for their actions.
On the post: Online 'Reputation Management' Company Brags About Abusing Copyright Law To Take Down Bad Reviews
Re: Re:
Where are Carol and Ted in all this?
On the post: Arkansas Senate Unanimously Approves A Conviction Requirement For Asset Forfeiture
Re: Re: federal loophole
They might reconsider some of the things they left out of the Constitution, such as privacy, and they might have some different thoughts about other things that were not included in the original document, which leaves out all of the amendments, but includes the concept that some people are only three fifths of a person, even though they owned some of those 3/5's persons at that time.
In fact, just reading those amendments might make them reconsider the original document, and after some discussion and deliberation they might agree that there were some things missed in their original efforts. Or not. Each side of the debate held very strong beliefs, and in a short time, without a complete history of their conclusions, they might or might not change their minds.
Then again, one side might still think an imperial style of government would have been better. That is until they looked at what has happened in the UK.
It is hard to get people off their ideology if beliefs are strongly held, whether those beliefs are rational or not.
On the post: Arkansas Senate Unanimously Approves A Conviction Requirement For Asset Forfeiture
Re: federal loophole
Given the arguments between those that wanted an imperial government and those that wanted a more democratic version, I would recommend that none of those brought back not be given a chance to talk to any politician before their testimony. In fact, they should be limited to review only the legislative history of the last, oh say 50 years or so, and not allowed to listen to any rhetoric prior to their speech. That would include not giving the reasons legislation's were proposed, only the results.
Then, as a follow up, give them access to the politicians and the rhetoric and do a second segment where their impugned perspectives are then recorded.
The differences could be significant. And eye opening...well not for some of us, but for many of us. The howling from those that seek power and control would exceed anything the loudest rock concert or jet airplanes could produce.
On the post: Security Researcher Discovers Flaws In Yelp-For-MAGAs App, Developer Threatens To Report Him To The Deep State
Re:
Wouldn't that distinction be based upon intent? I know the laws doesn't make that distinction, but that is what is wrong with the law, not what is wrong with a legitimate researcher looking for the kinds of problems found in this app.
On the post: Axel Voss Says Maybe YouTube Shouldn't Exist
Re:
I can see it now. Studly white male (a lie) who is wealthier than Croesus (another lie) and younger than Methuselah (not a lie but also not informative) seeks a complete set of Original Star Trek, all three seasons of their five year mission, for non-committal good times (not a lie but a red flag to potential dates).
On the post: German Government Confirms That Article 13 Does Mean Upload Filters, Destroying Claims To The Contrary Once And For All
Re: Nothing worth the effort from that one
As in:
On the post: German Government Confirms That Article 13 Does Mean Upload Filters, Destroying Claims To The Contrary Once And For All
Do as we say, not as we do!
It astounds me that not just the existence of, but the level of government hypocrisy, continues to astound many others. At this point we should be certain that many, if not all, government action is in the interest of power, not the people.
The primary fuel for that power is money, in the form of 'campaign contributions' and/or job placement after office. The intent of that power is control, and the exuberance that power and control provide to those that hold it. AKA, ego.
On the post: How To Actually Break Up Big Tech
Re:
Except when one considers the potential for some government bureaucracy testing something effectively. Given regulatory capture, soft money campaign contributions, etc., the question isn't could, or would some outside influence try to drive the tests one way or another, but how far they would be driven.
Then there is the question of the SEC understanding blockchain (I certainly don't) sufficiently to propose tests that would actually cover all the possibilities of issues, or the advent of newer technology that might mitigate whatever they come up with.
I have little faith.
On the post: Be Careful What You Wish For: 'Privacy Protection' Now Used As An Excuse To Cut Off Investigative Journalists From Key Database
Re:
OK, you hate Apple, we get that. You don't seem to like the media either, and BTW, not all of them are bad. But what does any of what you said have to do with the article extant?
On the post: Be Careful What You Wish For: 'Privacy Protection' Now Used As An Excuse To Cut Off Investigative Journalists From Key Database
Re:
1.888.930.9272.
Floor64, Inc.
370 Convention Way
Redwood City, CA 94063
What, you think Mike has time to go home with all he's involved in? You know, he has been accused of writing all these comments as well as all the other things.
Next >>