I can't be bothered to find it, but there is a list out there of successive generations decrying letter writing, newspapers, the phone, flim, the television, the internet, email, social media, et al. as bad as each new means of communication is demonized before being accepted and canonized and then supplanted by the next communications medium which is seen as a step too far.
As to the passive security wipe, thats exactly how iphones work. Except that, because humans are human and therefore make mistakes, you don't issue a zero tolerance policy. I'd love the ability to tune your tolerance for failure, iPhones currently give 10 attempts (or infinite if you disable the wipe feature). id like to be able to reduce that make my own choice for my tolerance of the tradeoffs between security and usability. But not so much that am willing to I sacrifice ease of use (Such as when I tried android and had to find the perfect phone/android build combination and hope community updates keep the system up to date) (not to mention Android being a much less secure environment out of the box). And not so much that I want to give access to my entire phone to another random party.
The fact that humans are human and therefore might make mistakes like fat fingering a 5 instead of an 8 or the system fails to register a character or the touch screen translates a tremor as pressing the same key multiple times means your suggestion to also include offensive measures is WILD. Oops, the system accidentally regitered your penultimate key press as two key presses? Your computer and phone are now slag. Have fun!
First, she claims that there should be a government review of any Facebook end-to-end encryption to make sure it's legit. And, yes, there are many reasons to not trust Facebook...
That right there is Mike stating your position, that she wants code review. Mike then continues to points out an issue with that plan, not just that she misunderstands the issue.
First, she claims that there should be a government review of any Facebook end-to-end encryption to make sure it's legit. And, yes, there are many reasons to not trust Facebook, but introducing the idea that government needs to review and approve encryption is worse. Is she completely unaware of the government's history of constantly trying to undermine and backdoor encryption? I mean, it's not exactly secret. And the US government has been trying to undermine and backdoor encryption pretty aggressively lately. Suggesting that there needs to be some government entity blessing the encryption opens the door to all sorts of mischief.
The title and initial comments in your post completely ignore what was actually said in the article. Mike isn't confused, he knows the request is for code review. You are because you didn't read. The issue is can you can trust a government who wants to undermine encryption (cough the US Government cough) to tell you encryption is safe? Do you really think if the CIA finds a backdoor the CIA will tell anyone it exists? No, they will exploit that discovery for themselves and tell everyone the encryption is safe. I don't know why you think differently.
side note: there has been some suggestion he is using the same registrar and host as 8kun, which is not a US company and the DMCA is less easy to weild against foreign bad actors.
The DMCA might bring the site down but you clearly haven’t taken the process on board.
DMcA takedown notice. if it’s a US host the content probably comes down.
DMCA Counter notice: This notice asserts the content is not infringing. after this notice the content could be restored, but content that comes down normally stars down for 2 weeks after a counter notice. if a lawsuit is filed in those 2 weeks , the content must come down again. by contrast if no lawsuit is filed, the content remains up.
The courts are 100% where this ends up. If he didn’t listen to this letter, he wont have an issue calling the bluff and sending the counter notice.
The reason you don’t use the DMCA being shot from the hip is now they can show a reasonable, moderated effort to compel compliance with licensing terms. This builds credit with the judge and/or jury. More importantly, It also importantly builds trust in tge open source community. good faith actors without teams of lawyers aren’t going to worry about being wiped out for minor mistakes like accidentally dropping the link to the source code.
shit formatting aside, perhaps you could explain why trump is not in violation of the license? You claim that trump isn’t conveying a work based on the program. Does that have a specific jargon meaning in this context that trump doesn’t meet in some specific way? comparing the language you shared provides no great insight as to why trump isn’t considered to be conveying a work based on mastodon?
After Twin Galaxies is bankrupted by the discovery process. The whole point of a SLAPP law is to laugh someone out of the courtroom early, rather than go to the expensive discovery process. He can lose with prejudice at this stage as well.
There is no 4d chess benefit that comes out of this.
49 of 50 states have a state police force. 15 refer to that force as highway patrol. The biggest job is handling jobs outside city jurisdictions, which i suppose at some points is mostly work writing moving violations and dealing with accidents. But they will be called in for any intra-state crimes that involve multiple local jurisdictions.
it remain the most effective means for both organizing Rocky horror casts (Via Groups) and promoting the show to locals (both through word of mouth and paid promotion of the event)
Insta is gaining in promotional effectiveness, but that’s more facebook. The only other space is tik tok and i don’t think we’ve seen great response from marketing there. Last i heard we think fewer locals see the key word of mouth posts.
In the end, we have to see less engagement on facebook platforms before promotion is out.
Your argument is that Facebook is encouraging 230 repeal to avoid the expensive litigation big tobacco faced for knowingly selling toxic products and lying to the government about it. Its a position so tenuously connected to the subject at hand its hard to follow the logic.
Presumably, Sam figured you were suggesting that the legal liability wouldn't be so significant, as it was not for big tobacco. Sam pointed out that the legal liability question is a concern for businesses that are small, not an industry referred to as "Big Tobacco". But this comparison proves the point.
The repeal of section 230 would invite massive litigation as new liability is introduced. Facebook is part of "big Tech". Like "Big Tobacco", even if found liable after 30 years of litigation, Facebook survives. The issue is that the competition won't.
I feel like a Credit Card company offering to allow you to pay off your balance and regain access to credit (and possibly clearing your credit report of the genuine delinquency) is a very different story than an internet company trying to drum up business by committing mail fraud.
There is a long standing position about moderation at Techdirt that you have failed to grasp.
Twitch does not need, legally, to provide a reason. Why do they need a reason? They don't. Legally. This is the "can they" discussion. The typical response from Techdirt and the commenters here is that those banned from one platform can go find other platforms to host them, what you have posited here. The problem is the article is not having a "can they" discussion. Techdirt is addressing the "should they" discussion, as in "why should Twitch provide a reason".
Techdirt believes that Twitch's decision is a bad business decision. Techdirt is not advocating for Amouranth's reinstatement. Techdirt is discussing the long-term implications of Twitch's behavior in the light of a company reeling from multiple scandals and multiple competitors actively looking to exploit the mess.
When twitch just banned Amouranth it was odd, but when it opened up 'hot tub streams' as a valid option and reinstated her, Twitch seemingly knew what it was letting in, and so the repeated banning and unbanning of Amouranth since sends mixed messaging. And it feeds a perception that policing Amouranth's sexuality is more important to address than say basic, security 101 concerns like not letting one email verify unlimited bot accounts, or having any security at all (they literally do not have anyone dedicated to the security of the platform or their trade secrets and stated they had no intentions to hire digital security staff a few weeks prior to the breach). That is not good messaging to send to creators you need using your platform.
Twitch makes money selling ads, selling ways to bypass ads, and by getting a cut of all streamer revenue (which overlaps with the first 2, admittedly). That relies on popular streamers to generate views. Streamers rely on the platform. Symbiotic relationship. Twitch pulling the rug out on a creator is bad form. And it can lead to a hallowing out of the up and coming twitch streaming base if newbies consider the platform unreliable, posing a long term risk to Twitch's stability as burnout and changing tastes/trends lead to turnover in content and creators. This is another long standing position at Techdirt. Neither the content nor the platform hold value without the other. Doesn't matter how good your platform is, you don't make money if you don't have creators. And vice versa, no matter how good the content, the creator needs a platform with lots of viewers to be successful. Twitch can piss its creators off all it wants, but it is bad business as it needs its creators.
Your arguement against the discussion of whether Twitch can ban Amouranth is good, but it does not address the question of if Twitch should or if Twitch should be more transparent with why her content keeps being taken down.
Vehicle manufacturers are not liable for the use a car is put to. Nor are they required to sell cars to anyone who walks on the lot. They are only responsible for failures caused by their own actions. Section 230 replicates that level of liability.
Credit cards banks are not liable for the misuse of the credit card, only their own malfeasance. Section 230 Replicates this level of liability
Thank you for higlighting that section 230 does not provide special immunity.
I know. My issue wasn't the word non-profit, it was the word profit in the sentance, i screwed up my markdown and did not bold that one.
I was not admonishing you to for the use of "non-revenue platforms", a non-profit platform is the correct term. i was admonishing the use of 'profit model', when the word to use is revenue. Not everyone has a profit model, everyone that takes in money has a revenue model.
In the "Transactional speech carve-outs" section, you end with:
But what's worse is that the current proposals are not being carefully drafted, and so we end up seeing bills end up threatening the Section 230 protection of any platform with any sort of profit model. Which, naturally, they all need to have in some way. After all, even non-profit platforms need some sort of income stream to keep the lights on, but proposals like these threaten to make it all but impossible to have the money needed for any platform to operate.
the use of the highlighted profit is misleading. The word to use here is revenue. This helps remind people that profit is different from revenue and that a non-profit doesn't have $0 revenue, it just is not intended to seek revenue in excess of expenses. I like the work as a whole, but that took me out hard as I was reading as I tried to parse what you were actually trying to say.
Re: "experts" opining on things in which they have no expertise
There are experts on whether people (9 billion or so of us) "need" or "don't need" a VPN?
Network security experts. The ones big name companies hire to assess the security in place and the tradeoffs between more security and more usability. Every company, every network, has its own security needs and its own tolerance for interruptions to work flow to maintain security. These are experts in discussing the relative value of security.
The advice is not that VPNs have no value, but that to the ordinary consumer, finding a VPN that is within their budget, won't sell your data, and can be trusted to do what it says on the tin is difficult, and might provide false confidence through the security theater. Your own commentary about not using a VPN being equal to letting a cop search your car is kinda odd, given the big arguement is that with many VPNs there is no genuine difference, all you've done is change who is doing the search.
On the post: New Study Indicates Recreational Screen Time For Kids Makes Very Little Difference
Re:
I can't be bothered to find it, but there is a list out there of successive generations decrying letter writing, newspapers, the phone, flim, the television, the internet, email, social media, et al. as bad as each new means of communication is demonized before being accepted and canonized and then supplanted by the next communications medium which is seen as a step too far.
On the post: If Courts Won't Protect People's Phones At The Border, Congress Needs To Act Now
Re: we need a new app
As to the passive security wipe, thats exactly how iphones work. Except that, because humans are human and therefore make mistakes, you don't issue a zero tolerance policy. I'd love the ability to tune your tolerance for failure, iPhones currently give 10 attempts (or infinite if you disable the wipe feature). id like to be able to reduce that make my own choice for my tolerance of the tradeoffs between security and usability. But not so much that am willing to I sacrifice ease of use (Such as when I tried android and had to find the perfect phone/android build combination and hope community updates keep the system up to date) (not to mention Android being a much less secure environment out of the box). And not so much that I want to give access to my entire phone to another random party.
The fact that humans are human and therefore might make mistakes like fat fingering a 5 instead of an 8 or the system fails to register a character or the touch screen translates a tremor as pressing the same key multiple times means your suggestion to also include offensive measures is WILD. Oops, the system accidentally regitered your penultimate key press as two key presses? Your computer and phone are now slag. Have fun!
Like seriously. Think about this for 2 seconds.
On the post: The Whistleblower And Encryption: Everyone Has An Angle, And Not Everyone Is A Policy Expert
Re: I think YOU may be confused
you might want to re-read the article:
That right there is Mike stating your position, that she wants code review. Mike then continues to points out an issue with that plan, not just that she misunderstands the issue.
The title and initial comments in your post completely ignore what was actually said in the article. Mike isn't confused, he knows the request is for code review. You are because you didn't read. The issue is can you can trust a government who wants to undermine encryption (cough the US Government cough) to tell you encryption is safe? Do you really think if the CIA finds a backdoor the CIA will tell anyone it exists? No, they will exploit that discovery for themselves and tell everyone the encryption is safe. I don't know why you think differently.
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: How it'll all go down....
side note: there has been some suggestion he is using the same registrar and host as 8kun, which is not a US company and the DMCA is less easy to weild against foreign bad actors.
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: How it'll all go down....
The DMCA might bring the site down but you clearly haven’t taken the process on board.
DMcA takedown notice. if it’s a US host the content probably comes down.
DMCA Counter notice: This notice asserts the content is not infringing. after this notice the content could be restored, but content that comes down normally stars down for 2 weeks after a counter notice. if a lawsuit is filed in those 2 weeks , the content must come down again. by contrast if no lawsuit is filed, the content remains up.
The courts are 100% where this ends up. If he didn’t listen to this letter, he wont have an issue calling the bluff and sending the counter notice.
The reason you don’t use the DMCA being shot from the hip is now they can show a reasonable, moderated effort to compel compliance with licensing terms. This builds credit with the judge and/or jury. More importantly, It also importantly builds trust in tge open source community. good faith actors without teams of lawyers aren’t going to worry about being wiped out for minor mistakes like accidentally dropping the link to the source code.
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: Re: Re: You got the wrong clause.
yeah, i see the intended message now. That post was hard to read. Thanks!
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: You got the wrong clause.
shit formatting aside, perhaps you could explain why trump is not in violation of the license? You claim that trump isn’t conveying a work based on the program. Does that have a specific jargon meaning in this context that trump doesn’t meet in some specific way? comparing the language you shared provides no great insight as to why trump isn’t considered to be conveying a work based on mastodon?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
To be clear, since I had 3 comments, the error appears in the editor's choice insightful comment.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211004/11400447697/why-section-230-reform-effectively-m eans-section-230-repeal.shtml#c122
Should be the link, but the article points to another Techdirt post entirely.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
I guess i should post sleep deprived more often! I am humbled you all thought so highly of my commentary.
On the post: Billy Mitchell Survives Anti-SLAPP Motion From Twin Galaxies A Second Time
Re: I see this differently than Techdirt
After Twin Galaxies is bankrupted by the discovery process. The whole point of a SLAPP law is to laugh someone out of the courtroom early, rather than go to the expensive discovery process. He can lose with prejudice at this stage as well.
There is no 4d chess benefit that comes out of this.
On the post: Journalists In St. Louis Discover State Agency Is Revealing Teacher Social Security Numbers; Governors Vows To Prosecute Journalists As Hackers
Re:
49 of 50 states have a state police force. 15 refer to that force as highway patrol. The biggest job is handling jobs outside city jurisdictions, which i suppose at some points is mostly work writing moving violations and dealing with accidents. But they will be called in for any intra-state crimes that involve multiple local jurisdictions.
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Re:
it remain the most effective means for both organizing Rocky horror casts (Via Groups) and promoting the show to locals (both through word of mouth and paid promotion of the event)
Insta is gaining in promotional effectiveness, but that’s more facebook. The only other space is tik tok and i don’t think we’ve seen great response from marketing there. Last i heard we think fewer locals see the key word of mouth posts.
In the end, we have to see less engagement on facebook platforms before promotion is out.
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Re: Re: Re: On your "First Amendment" line, Gr
I can't imagine why a spam filter would deem the guy posting 9 times in 6 minutes "spam".
On the post: Facebook's Nick Clegg Makes It Clear: If You're Looking To Undermine Section 230, That's EXACTLY What Facebook Wants
Re: Re: Re: Government Ally
Your argument is that Facebook is encouraging 230 repeal to avoid the expensive litigation big tobacco faced for knowingly selling toxic products and lying to the government about it. Its a position so tenuously connected to the subject at hand its hard to follow the logic.
Presumably, Sam figured you were suggesting that the legal liability wouldn't be so significant, as it was not for big tobacco. Sam pointed out that the legal liability question is a concern for businesses that are small, not an industry referred to as "Big Tobacco". But this comparison proves the point.
The repeal of section 230 would invite massive litigation as new liability is introduced. Facebook is part of "big Tech". Like "Big Tobacco", even if found liable after 30 years of litigation, Facebook survives. The issue is that the competition won't.
On the post: Charter Spectrum Threatens To Ruin Potential Customers Over Debt They Don't Owe
Re: Metastasize
I feel like a Credit Card company offering to allow you to pay off your balance and regain access to credit (and possibly clearing your credit report of the genuine delinquency) is a very different story than an internet company trying to drum up business by committing mail fraud.
On the post: Twitch, Others, Ban Amouranth Yet Again, Once Again With Zero Transparency
Re: Why do they need a reason?
There is a long standing position about moderation at Techdirt that you have failed to grasp.
Twitch does not need, legally, to provide a reason. Why do they need a reason? They don't. Legally. This is the "can they" discussion. The typical response from Techdirt and the commenters here is that those banned from one platform can go find other platforms to host them, what you have posited here. The problem is the article is not having a "can they" discussion. Techdirt is addressing the "should they" discussion, as in "why should Twitch provide a reason".
Techdirt believes that Twitch's decision is a bad business decision. Techdirt is not advocating for Amouranth's reinstatement. Techdirt is discussing the long-term implications of Twitch's behavior in the light of a company reeling from multiple scandals and multiple competitors actively looking to exploit the mess.
When twitch just banned Amouranth it was odd, but when it opened up 'hot tub streams' as a valid option and reinstated her, Twitch seemingly knew what it was letting in, and so the repeated banning and unbanning of Amouranth since sends mixed messaging. And it feeds a perception that policing Amouranth's sexuality is more important to address than say basic, security 101 concerns like not letting one email verify unlimited bot accounts, or having any security at all (they literally do not have anyone dedicated to the security of the platform or their trade secrets and stated they had no intentions to hire digital security staff a few weeks prior to the breach). That is not good messaging to send to creators you need using your platform.
Twitch makes money selling ads, selling ways to bypass ads, and by getting a cut of all streamer revenue (which overlaps with the first 2, admittedly). That relies on popular streamers to generate views. Streamers rely on the platform. Symbiotic relationship. Twitch pulling the rug out on a creator is bad form. And it can lead to a hallowing out of the up and coming twitch streaming base if newbies consider the platform unreliable, posing a long term risk to Twitch's stability as burnout and changing tastes/trends lead to turnover in content and creators. This is another long standing position at Techdirt. Neither the content nor the platform hold value without the other. Doesn't matter how good your platform is, you don't make money if you don't have creators. And vice versa, no matter how good the content, the creator needs a platform with lots of viewers to be successful. Twitch can piss its creators off all it wants, but it is bad business as it needs its creators.
Your arguement against the discussion of whether Twitch can ban Amouranth is good, but it does not address the question of if Twitch should or if Twitch should be more transparent with why her content keeps being taken down.
On the post: Why Section 230 'Reform' Effectively Means Section 230 Repeal
Re: Sign Of Growth
Vehicle manufacturers are not liable for the use a car is put to. Nor are they required to sell cars to anyone who walks on the lot. They are only responsible for failures caused by their own actions. Section 230 replicates that level of liability.
Credit cards banks are not liable for the misuse of the credit card, only their own malfeasance. Section 230 Replicates this level of liability
Thank you for higlighting that section 230 does not provide special immunity.
On the post: Why Section 230 'Reform' Effectively Means Section 230 Repeal
Re: Re:
I know. My issue wasn't the word non-profit, it was the word profit in the sentance, i screwed up my markdown and did not bold that one.
I was not admonishing you to for the use of "non-revenue platforms", a non-profit platform is the correct term. i was admonishing the use of 'profit model', when the word to use is revenue. Not everyone has a profit model, everyone that takes in money has a revenue model.
On the post: Why Section 230 'Reform' Effectively Means Section 230 Repeal
Cathy, loving the breakdown here.
In the "Transactional speech carve-outs" section, you end with:
the use of the highlighted profit is misleading. The word to use here is revenue. This helps remind people that profit is different from revenue and that a non-profit doesn't have $0 revenue, it just is not intended to seek revenue in excess of expenses. I like the work as a whole, but that took me out hard as I was reading as I tried to parse what you were actually trying to say.
On the post: Most People Probably Don't Need A VPN, Experts Now Advise
Re: "experts" opining on things in which they have no expertise
Network security experts. The ones big name companies hire to assess the security in place and the tradeoffs between more security and more usability. Every company, every network, has its own security needs and its own tolerance for interruptions to work flow to maintain security. These are experts in discussing the relative value of security.
The advice is not that VPNs have no value, but that to the ordinary consumer, finding a VPN that is within their budget, won't sell your data, and can be trusted to do what it says on the tin is difficult, and might provide false confidence through the security theater. Your own commentary about not using a VPN being equal to letting a cop search your car is kinda odd, given the big arguement is that with many VPNs there is no genuine difference, all you've done is change who is doing the search.
Next >>