You know, AChole, the reason you think conservatives are being kicked off of mainstream platforms is that these poster-boys-for-better-child-rearing-requirements are not getting kicked off for their partisanship, they're being shown the door for a myriad of reasons. The fact that they happen to be Republican is actually sad, because it denigrates a once useful party that helped prevent government waste of taxpayer dollars. Now, the only way they they can accomplish anything in the way of policy is to commit acts of social terrorism, and then complain to the high skies that they've been somehow wronged.
But the final straw, when you get down to it, is that they are constantly pounding the drum about the Constitution and 1A, but they willfully refuse to read all of that particular Amendment. If you can't figure out what I mean by that, then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Ah, yes, Benson DuBois (Robert Guillaume). He was a very quick-witted actor with a great sense of timing in delivering the sting. Thanks for the memories.
I honestly was not aware of that, thanks for the link. But the fact remains, no matter what country we're talking about (and I'm an American), the idea of .... no, wait.... another responder said it best in another thread today. To quote:
That's like a child pointing to a random stranger and claiming that they must give him some candy.
I also note while reading that set of rules, there's nothing stating one iota of self-regulation regarding traffic, percentages, double-dipping, or anything of the sort. In fact, Point #4 specifically states that all members will be honest in their dealings with others. I don't see much of that coming out of Allera's pie-hole.
Actually, the law is not yet set in stone on that one. Several organizations have lobbied Congress over the years to enlarge the ADA to include the internet, and thereby any and all websites found on therein, but to date, Congress has failed to actually do so.
There have been numerous private law suits, some of them successful, but those are essentially civil - a non-government party sues a website claiming an unlawful violation of the ADA - but they are usually accompanied by other claims as well.
Some states, California in particular, have stricter laws on this topic, and where nexus can be proven, suits of this nature are more often successful.
Your statement assumes that Verizon customer service was ever "North" in the first place. Pretty sure you won't find very many people agreeing with you on that one.
Technically, a pixel is a segment of your monitor/screen/display that can be turned on or off (lit or unlit), not something that is transmitted over the network. What is transmitted is an instruction to light up that one pixel. But, and here's the definition of "clear", if the transmitted image tells the pixel to assume the same color as the pixel would otherwise display, then it is transparent, or "clear". IOW, if the pixel is supposed to be red, then it will transparently display red, but the instruction, having loaded and told the pixel what to do, will go on to report back to the server both that it was loaded, and other privacy-invading data.
That transparency format, and the 1x1 size, is how ad blockers find and eliminate these things.
BTW, a device need not be hardware. Remember your school English teacher telling you that "this author used a plot device...", and you can see that it merely means "a way to get a desired result".
"Every Tbps (terabit-per-second) of data consumed over and above current levels costs about £50m"
Errr, nope. You can play Hollywood Accountant all day long, but if you aren't willing to open your books for an in-depth inspection, then we aren't even close to falling for that kind of crap.
"In the last year alone we’ve seen 4Tbps of extra usage and the cost to keep up with that growth is huge."
Sounds like a personal problem to me. But more to the point, who's getting this allegedly extra £200m from you, mmm? Enquiring minds want to know.
"An overwhelming majority of day-to-day usage, up to 80%, is accounted for by only a handful of companies such as YouTube, Facebook, Netflix and the games company Activision Blizzard."
Yeah, and so? Does it really matter who's doing the serving of data, or where it's being served from (location-wise)? Let me answer that for you - NO, it doesn't matter at all.
You seem to think that whining about a small number of popular companies is a better target than a very large number of small companies who also serve up data to viewers, but that aren't as popular, for whatever reason. One can only guess that it's all about the money, specifically the ad revenue earned by those popular companies.
"When the rules were created 25 years ago..."
Wrong again. No one set any rules at any time, not since A.G. Bell invented the telephone. No government authority anywhere in the world has deigned to tell phone companies (and/or ISP's) how much capacity they have to provide, just in case the demand should somehow rise above the established average.
"I don’t think anyone would have envisioned four or five companies would be driving 80% of the market"
They didn't have to envision any such thing, because there's no cause for worry over something that doesn't matter one whit. Let me spell it out for you - electrons going across the wire don't give a flying fuck where they came from, where they pass through, nor where they finish their sojourn. Simple as that. Nor do they care if they are travelling alone, or in a group, regardless of that group's size - the are still travelling to their destination, end of story.
tl;dr:
Calling Allera's waste of oxygen a pile of bullshit would be an insult to both the bull and all of the shit it has ever dumped.
And for you, Karl:
ISPs build out network infrastructure based on managing peak demand.
Sorry, but nope. They build for the minimum infrastructure necessary to keep the majority of their customers happy. This means that the telephone company set the example more than 100 years ago, with a switched network. The same thing is being done today, telling customers that there is plenty of capacity, but the execs are hoping like crazy that no more than a relative small portion of their customer base is actually using the "pipes" at any one time. The difference is, you used to hear "All circuits are currently busy, please hang up and try again later." Now you hear "WHY THE FUCK IS MY SPEED SLOWER THAN A 56k MODEM?!"
I've said something similar before here on TD, but now I'll get specific.
If such laws come to pass, then it should be easy for each ISP, platform, lower-level infrastructure player, et al to simply pull the plug on the personal site(s) of each and every yo-yo voting for this crap. (Ditto for the prez, if he/she did not veto it.) Simply say "We're sorry, but we can't take the chance that you, or your representatives, might sue us for some violation that you made into a law." Keep 'em off the 'net until the bogus law is rescinded in some fashion.
Now repeat that process for each and every asshole in the MafiAA that is pushing (read: bribing the hell out of Congress) for such a law. In fact, if the above mentioned players were to do this now, it wouldn't be long before the goons changed their tune. After all, collateral damage gives Zero Fucks.... or so I've heard, anyways.
.... who generally l̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶W̶I̶L̶L̶P̶O̶W̶E̶R̶ "accept donations" in order to NOT properly police dodgy behavior at the scale it happens in the U.S.
... and then they program the firmware to tell the user to replace the cartridge(s) based on time passed, not ink used. This is especially depressing when you can easily determine that the cartridges have some (or a lot of) ink left in them.
Alas, that was almost funny, because there is certainly a lot of muck in the minds of these "gotta think of the kids" bozos. But as a whole, yes, this particular segment of society is running amok.
Re: Count me among those at Techdirt who think this ruling is wr
Let me start by saying that I've not read the entire opinion.
Now let me state that if "minimal merit" is indeed the letter of the law, as envisioned by the legislature and not made out of whole cloth by the court(s) (as in for example, QI), then BM has met the qualifying factor(s). I'll not debate the intent of the legislature here, that's for the courts to decide. (And the legislature to go back and fix, if they don't like the court decisions.) What I do want to point out is that BM has solid evidence of something done by TG, and that is the recission of his former record-holder status. What the court is being asked to decide is whether or not that was done out of malice, or organically out of a desire for consistency with TG's rules.
This differs greatly from the vast swath of "defamation" cases because in this instance, an award was made first, and rescinded only some time later. Whereas in most cases, the defamation claim is based on something said that got the offended person's dander up, but the alleged offending statement was just that - a statement, whether of fact or opinion, and nothing more. IOW, no award by a competent body was made and then taken away, as was done to BM. He was held in (high?) esteem by his community, then he was brought low by that very same outfit. I view that activity as quite different from an expression of fact/opinion, usually displayed in some form of media. I also argue that such activity is a demonstrable prima facie case of defamation, well worthy of a court's investigation and findings.
And no, for the reasons above, this does not mean that every SLAPP suit will automatically be continued, as if the anti-SLAPP law was non-existent. I'm not familiar with the California statute governing this, nor do I want to be familiar with it, but I'd bet that it's filled with a lot more detail that will ultimately affect the BM/TG case in ways we can only imagine.
Or just get a hint and Find something else to complain about, that dont affect you at All.
I don't think that's what you meant to convey. The fact is that they are, right now, complaining about something that doesn't affect them at all**. What they should be doing is complaining about something that DOES indeed affect them, and hopefully more deeply than one might expect.
** If porn is somehow actually affecting them directly, then I wanna know where to sit and watch, and how much for a big bucket of popcorn. After all, they want to get all up in my personal and private business, then turn about should be fair play, shouldn't it?
Facebook has armies of lawyers who can fend off liability.
Let's look at this under light of MONEY.
Those "pesky" liability lawsuits will eventually gets to be rather expensive. Most likely they'll start with confidential settlements, but someone will blab (perhaps anonymously), and the Gold Rush is on.
Sooner or later, advertisers are going to realize that some of their money isn't going to pay for eyeballs, it's instead going for settlements and direct lawsuit expenses. (After all, lawyers need that second yacht to store at their condo in the Bahamas, don't you know.) Not long after that, there will be some back room meetings, well out of the public eye, and there'll be a sea change of no small proportions.
On the post: Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is)
Re:
You know, AChole, the reason you think conservatives are being kicked off of mainstream platforms is that these poster-boys-for-better-child-rearing-requirements are not getting kicked off for their partisanship, they're being shown the door for a myriad of reasons. The fact that they happen to be Republican is actually sad, because it denigrates a once useful party that helped prevent government waste of taxpayer dollars. Now, the only way they they can accomplish anything in the way of policy is to commit acts of social terrorism, and then complain to the high skies that they've been somehow wronged.
But the final straw, when you get down to it, is that they are constantly pounding the drum about the Constitution and 1A, but they willfully refuse to read all of that particular Amendment. If you can't figure out what I mean by that, then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
On the post: Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
After seeing so many Re: Re: Re:'s in a line, I'm beginning to think that Aretha Franklin has been reincarnated, and is living here on TD.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: On TV.
Ah, yes, Benson DuBois (Robert Guillaume). He was a very quick-witted actor with a great sense of timing in delivering the sting. Thanks for the memories.
On the post: British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular
Re: Re:
I honestly was not aware of that, thanks for the link. But the fact remains, no matter what country we're talking about (and I'm an American), the idea of .... no, wait.... another responder said it best in another thread today. To quote:
I also note while reading that set of rules, there's nothing stating one iota of self-regulation regarding traffic, percentages, double-dipping, or anything of the sort. In fact, Point #4 specifically states that all members will be honest in their dealings with others. I don't see much of that coming out of Allera's pie-hole.
On the post: Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is)
Re: Screen readers for the blind?
Actually, the law is not yet set in stone on that one. Several organizations have lobbied Congress over the years to enlarge the ADA to include the internet, and thereby any and all websites found on therein, but to date, Congress has failed to actually do so.
There have been numerous private law suits, some of them successful, but those are essentially civil - a non-government party sues a website claiming an unlawful violation of the ADA - but they are usually accompanied by other claims as well.
Some states, California in particular, have stricter laws on this topic, and where nexus can be proven, suits of this nature are more often successful.
On the post: Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones
Re: What has happened
Your statement assumes that Verizon customer service was ever "North" in the first place. Pretty sure you won't find very many people agreeing with you on that one.
On the post: Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is)
Re:
^^^ I see what you did there, good play. :)
On the post: Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is)
Re:
And predictably wrong, every time.
On the post: Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is)
Absent any proof of those assertions, we'll just go ahead and assume that you a lie like a Trump.
On the post: Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is)
Re:
Technically, a pixel is a segment of your monitor/screen/display that can be turned on or off (lit or unlit), not something that is transmitted over the network. What is transmitted is an instruction to light up that one pixel. But, and here's the definition of "clear", if the transmitted image tells the pixel to assume the same color as the pixel would otherwise display, then it is transparent, or "clear". IOW, if the pixel is supposed to be red, then it will transparently display red, but the instruction, having loaded and told the pixel what to do, will go on to report back to the server both that it was loaded, and other privacy-invading data.
That transparency format, and the 1x1 size, is how ad blockers find and eliminate these things.
BTW, a device need not be hardware. Remember your school English teacher telling you that "this author used a plot device...", and you can see that it merely means "a way to get a desired result".
On the post: British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular
Errr, nope. You can play Hollywood Accountant all day long, but if you aren't willing to open your books for an in-depth inspection, then we aren't even close to falling for that kind of crap.
Sounds like a personal problem to me. But more to the point, who's getting this allegedly extra £200m from you, mmm? Enquiring minds want to know.
Yeah, and so? Does it really matter who's doing the serving of data, or where it's being served from (location-wise)? Let me answer that for you - NO, it doesn't matter at all.
You seem to think that whining about a small number of popular companies is a better target than a very large number of small companies who also serve up data to viewers, but that aren't as popular, for whatever reason. One can only guess that it's all about the money, specifically the ad revenue earned by those popular companies.
Wrong again. No one set any rules at any time, not since A.G. Bell invented the telephone. No government authority anywhere in the world has deigned to tell phone companies (and/or ISP's) how much capacity they have to provide, just in case the demand should somehow rise above the established average.
They didn't have to envision any such thing, because there's no cause for worry over something that doesn't matter one whit. Let me spell it out for you - electrons going across the wire don't give a flying fuck where they came from, where they pass through, nor where they finish their sojourn. Simple as that. Nor do they care if they are travelling alone, or in a group, regardless of that group's size - the are still travelling to their destination, end of story.
tl;dr:
Calling Allera's waste of oxygen a pile of bullshit would be an insult to both the bull and all of the shit it has ever dumped.
And for you, Karl:
Sorry, but nope. They build for the minimum infrastructure necessary to keep the majority of their customers happy. This means that the telephone company set the example more than 100 years ago, with a switched network. The same thing is being done today, telling customers that there is plenty of capacity, but the execs are hoping like crazy that no more than a relative small portion of their customer base is actually using the "pipes" at any one time. The difference is, you used to hear "All circuits are currently busy, please hang up and try again later." Now you hear "WHY THE FUCK IS MY SPEED SLOWER THAN A 56k MODEM?!"
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
I've said something similar before here on TD, but now I'll get specific.
If such laws come to pass, then it should be easy for each ISP, platform, lower-level infrastructure player, et al to simply pull the plug on the personal site(s) of each and every yo-yo voting for this crap. (Ditto for the prez, if he/she did not veto it.) Simply say "We're sorry, but we can't take the chance that you, or your representatives, might sue us for some violation that you made into a law." Keep 'em off the 'net until the bogus law is rescinded in some fashion.
Now repeat that process for each and every asshole in the MafiAA that is pushing (read: bribing the hell out of Congress) for such a law. In fact, if the above mentioned players were to do this now, it wouldn't be long before the goons changed their tune. After all, collateral damage gives Zero Fucks.... or so I've heard, anyways.
On the post: Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink
Re: U.S. regulators
And, fixed that for you. ;)
On the post: Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink
Re:
... and then they program the firmware to tell the user to replace the cartridge(s) based on time passed, not ink used. This is especially depressing when you can easily determine that the cartridges have some (or a lot of) ink left in them.
On the post: Apple Gives Chinese Government What It Wants (Again); Pulls Quran App From Chinese App Store
Re: 'Oh NOW doing that's a problem?'
Apple's answer would likely be: "When you can bring us one and a half billion potential customers, then we'll talk about it."
On the post: Many Digital Divide 'Solutions' Make Privacy And Trust A Luxury Option
Alas, that was almost funny, because there is certainly a lot of muck in the minds of these "gotta think of the kids" bozos. But as a whole, yes, this particular segment of society is running amok.
On the post: Billy Mitchell Survives Anti-SLAPP Motion From Twin Galaxies A Second Time
Re: Count me among those at Techdirt who think this ruling is wr
Let me start by saying that I've not read the entire opinion.
Now let me state that if "minimal merit" is indeed the letter of the law, as envisioned by the legislature and not made out of whole cloth by the court(s) (as in for example, QI), then BM has met the qualifying factor(s). I'll not debate the intent of the legislature here, that's for the courts to decide. (And the legislature to go back and fix, if they don't like the court decisions.) What I do want to point out is that BM has solid evidence of something done by TG, and that is the recission of his former record-holder status. What the court is being asked to decide is whether or not that was done out of malice, or organically out of a desire for consistency with TG's rules.
This differs greatly from the vast swath of "defamation" cases because in this instance, an award was made first, and rescinded only some time later. Whereas in most cases, the defamation claim is based on something said that got the offended person's dander up, but the alleged offending statement was just that - a statement, whether of fact or opinion, and nothing more. IOW, no award by a competent body was made and then taken away, as was done to BM. He was held in (high?) esteem by his community, then he was brought low by that very same outfit. I view that activity as quite different from an expression of fact/opinion, usually displayed in some form of media. I also argue that such activity is a demonstrable prima facie case of defamation, well worthy of a court's investigation and findings.
And no, for the reasons above, this does not mean that every SLAPP suit will automatically be continued, as if the anti-SLAPP law was non-existent. I'm not familiar with the California statute governing this, nor do I want to be familiar with it, but I'd bet that it's filled with a lot more detail that will ultimately affect the BM/TG case in ways we can only imagine.
On the post: Prudish Mastercard About To Make Life Difficult For Tons Of Websites
Re: NCOSE
I don't think that's what you meant to convey. The fact is that they are, right now, complaining about something that doesn't affect them at all**. What they should be doing is complaining about something that DOES indeed affect them, and hopefully more deeply than one might expect.
** If porn is somehow actually affecting them directly, then I wanna know where to sit and watch, and how much for a big bucket of popcorn. After all, they want to get all up in my personal and private business, then turn about should be fair play, shouldn't it?
On the post: In Latest Black Eye For NSO Group, Dubai's King Found To Have Used NSO Spyware To Hack His Ex-Wife's Phone
Re: Free markets unconcerned
Careful there, you might soon be hearing from Mr. Clancy's lawyers. Just sayin'.....
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: Government Ally
Let's look at this under light of MONEY.
Those "pesky" liability lawsuits will eventually gets to be rather expensive. Most likely they'll start with confidential settlements, but someone will blab (perhaps anonymously), and the Gold Rush is on.
Sooner or later, advertisers are going to realize that some of their money isn't going to pay for eyeballs, it's instead going for settlements and direct lawsuit expenses. (After all, lawyers need that second yacht to store at their condo in the Bahamas, don't you know.) Not long after that, there will be some back room meetings, well out of the public eye, and there'll be a sea change of no small proportions.
That's my bet anyways. Any takers?
Next >>