If he weren't a dishonest hypocrite yes, however the rule only works one way, where it's terrible bias that must be prevented if you worked against the industry but it's 'experience vital to the job' if you worked for them.
As I(and I'm sure others) have noted multiple times in the past, fight back and you might lose, give up and you ensure it.
The odds may be stacked against the public and it may very well result in this legal abomination passing but to make a call-back to recent articles SOPA was basically a done-deal and that got killed off by a sufficiently large pushback, so even sure things can be shot down if enough people make clear that they're not happy.
Even if it does make it through there's still value in making your opposition heard as it makes it ever so slightly harder for them to lie about how the current law is super popular so clearly people wouldn't have any problems with 'just a few' teeny-tiny additions/expansions.
The content creator put his videos on Youtube, on the assumption that because they were covered under his country's laws they were fine. The greedy morons over at Toei decided that no, their country's laws are all that mattered and that rather than work with the platform/creator they'd take down all the videos simply because the system allowed them to at the time.
The fact that they could do that does not mean they weren't acting like goons when they did it or that they don't shoulder all the blame for their actions victimizing the content creator.
Bloody hell, you know something has gone completely nuts when YouTube is the good guy in the story...
One thing's for certain, Toei is absolutely on my 'Never buy from' list after this particular stunt, as bad as it looked from the original article this one really makes clear how they went above and beyond to screw the content creator who was providing free publicity for them and their products.
'Completely and utterly ignore the law you passed and pretend that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the sudden proliferation of [Content you claimed was vital to be stopped]'
Time and time again reading this article I kept coming back to the thought of 'we expect in others what we would do ourselves', and how again and again they effectively if not outright made the argument that the only way a platform would care about CSAM is if there were penalties involved for not getting rid of it.
That... say a lot about the politicians involved here I'd say, and what it says is anything but flattering.
On a more general note this looks to serve as another great example of 'If the only way you can defend your position is with dishonesty that's a sign that even you know it's indefensible.'
'Just brush this under the rug and problem solved!'
If they want attention I say give it to them, just make it honest.
Any time they bring up how they're Doing Something with this correctly point out how this is basically FOSTA 2.0 and how that made it harder to find and prosecute the victims and perpetrators respectively of sex trafficking, leaving them worse off than before, and as such any politician in favor of this bill is actually working overtime on the side of those creating and sharing CSAM rather than against them.
Politicians love them some simplistic 'think of the children' to shut thought and opposition down so the solution is simple: use it against them. Any politician who supports and signs on to this bill should be treated as someone in favor of CSAM and against the children. Do not pass GO, do not let them spin this as them protecting children, support for this bill is support for CSAM.
'We set that precedent and we're going to be SO busy...'
Of course not, he's got money, is involved with the government(even if only to lie to them), and his victims are just average citizens, they certainly don't want to set the precedent that any of that is worthy of a 'chat' with the FBI.
Re: There's indifference, there's evil, and then there's THIS...
... no idea why I went with 'levity' there, guess I was just looking for something less depressing than the article and latched onto whatever I could find, poor word choice though.
It's a symbiotic relationship when it comes to preying upon the public, the police violate the rights/lives, the prosecutors bring the hammer down on the victims and the judges give it all the stamp of approval and/or shield the police should anyone have the audacity to try to argue that the police are ever wrong.
There's indifference, there's evil, and then there's THIS...
One, it's 2021 and we still don't have even a basic privacy law
Typo or article just been sitting in the queue for a long time?
Moment of levity aside it takes a truly spectacular type of scumbag to look at a suicide prevention hotline job and ask yourself 'How can we not only monetize this but do so in a way that has a very real chance of decreasing the willingness of people to contact us, potentially with lethal results?', so it looks like barely a month into the year and we've already got a two-for-one contender for 'Biggest Asshole of 2022'.
Whatever greedy wastes of flesh that were involved need to be publicly fired, with an announcement that such behavior is absolutely out of bounds because as it stands they just made clear that as much as they might claim to care about the people who contact them they have no problem exploiting those people for a quick buck.
'It's not MY freedom at risk so it's good enough.'
Brennan's decision notes there's no such thing as "perfect source code" or "flawless machines."
... Said the person who will never find himself on the receiving end of the tech in question where a false positive could have serious consequences on his life.
It's easy to say that questionable tech is good enough to lock someone up and/or hit them with serious fines when you will never face that risk, however even making that argument should be enough to see him removed from the bench as wildly unfit for the job.
Oh you could solve so many problems if those making these decisions and/or arguing for the infallibility of the tech involved had to risk their freedom and rights on the accuracy of that same tech...
So many of these laws seem to be written in the naïve belief that political opponents will never use those laws or never be in power themselves. And that is a very dangerous assumption, which historically never seems to hold up.
You'd think someone who's been alive during the past presidency would understand why criminalizing 'lies' is a huge pitfall that will be weaponized... they either have a really short memory or incredibly naivety I guess.
The first test any proposed or even considered law should be run through should always be 'Would I feel comfortable if my absolute worst enemy were to have the ability to make use of my suggestion/law to the fullest possible(so not just what you plan on using it for but what it could be used for) extent the second it's put into the books?'
Doesn't matter how unlikely you think that possibility is, how sure you are that whoever that is would never have that power, if you can't confidently and with no hesitation answer 'yes' to that question then it's a bad law/idea.
I guarantee you that if it reaches that point a special session will come about to add a 'minor little addendum/clarification' to the law that will just so happen to exempt their own platforms and allow them to keep kicking people off for offending the Dear Leader and his cultists.
Given the explicit exemption of ISP's it's rather like making privately owned roads that everyone uses exempt from laws regarding who they can and can not prohibit from using the road while placing the individual stores the road connects to under those same laws, despite the fact that if you can't use the road you can't access any of the stores.
'Finally, they can't show my uncle out the door anymore!'
But if they want to go on the record as saying Twitter should be forced to host Klan propaganda…well, I hope someone points out how this law is saying exactly that.
The problem is that the people they're pandering to would likely see 'forced to host overtly racist content' as a feature, not a bug.
That said it would still be worthwhile to force that admission, it'd be hilarious to see georgia politicians fall into the same trap that texas republicans walked right into by saying the quiet part out loud.
On the post: Hollywood, Media, And Telecom Giants Are Clearly Terrified Gigi Sohn Will Do Her Job At The FCC
Re:
If he weren't a dishonest hypocrite yes, however the rule only works one way, where it's terrible bias that must be prevented if you worked against the industry but it's 'experience vital to the job' if you worked for them.
On the post: Senate's New EARN IT Bill Will Make Child Exploitation Problem Worse, Not Better, And Still Attacks Encryption
If you're going to lose make them work for it
As I(and I'm sure others) have noted multiple times in the past, fight back and you might lose, give up and you ensure it.
The odds may be stacked against the public and it may very well result in this legal abomination passing but to make a call-back to recent articles SOPA was basically a done-deal and that got killed off by a sufficiently large pushback, so even sure things can be shot down if enough people make clear that they're not happy.
Even if it does make it through there's still value in making your opposition heard as it makes it ever so slightly harder for them to lie about how the current law is super popular so clearly people wouldn't have any problems with 'just a few' teeny-tiny additions/expansions.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
An own-goal of epic proportions
Oh I dearly hope that was the motivation because if so talk about fixing a paper-cut by hacking your arm off with a chainsaw.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
Re: Re: victim?
What the hell are you even going on about?
The content creator put his videos on Youtube, on the assumption that because they were covered under his country's laws they were fine. The greedy morons over at Toei decided that no, their country's laws are all that mattered and that rather than work with the platform/creator they'd take down all the videos simply because the system allowed them to at the time.
The fact that they could do that does not mean they weren't acting like goons when they did it or that they don't shoulder all the blame for their actions victimizing the content creator.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
Re: youtuber
Ah good old blaming the victim, truly the masterclass of arguments...
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
'Scorched earth', not the best for positive PR
Bloody hell, you know something has gone completely nuts when YouTube is the good guy in the story...
One thing's for certain, Toei is absolutely on my 'Never buy from' list after this particular stunt, as bad as it looked from the original article this one really makes clear how they went above and beyond to screw the content creator who was providing free publicity for them and their products.
On the post: Senators' 'Myths & Facts' About EARN IT Is Mostly Myths, Not Facts
Re: Re:
And who have been conditioned to hear 'tech company/platform' and immediately think 'bad'.
On the post: Senate's New EARN IT Bill Will Make Child Exploitation Problem Worse, Not Better, And Still Attacks Encryption
Re:
As post-FOSTA showed you left out a step:
'Completely and utterly ignore the law you passed and pretend that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the sudden proliferation of [Content you claimed was vital to be stopped]'
On the post: Senators' 'Myths & Facts' About EARN IT Is Mostly Myths, Not Facts
'We wouldn't care so why would they?'
Time and time again reading this article I kept coming back to the thought of 'we expect in others what we would do ourselves', and how again and again they effectively if not outright made the argument that the only way a platform would care about CSAM is if there were penalties involved for not getting rid of it.
That... say a lot about the politicians involved here I'd say, and what it says is anything but flattering.
On a more general note this looks to serve as another great example of 'If the only way you can defend your position is with dishonesty that's a sign that even you know it's indefensible.'
On the post: Senate's New EARN IT Bill Will Make Child Exploitation Problem Worse, Not Better, And Still Attacks Encryption
'Just brush this under the rug and problem solved!'
If they want attention I say give it to them, just make it honest.
Any time they bring up how they're Doing Something with this correctly point out how this is basically FOSTA 2.0 and how that made it harder to find and prosecute the victims and perpetrators respectively of sex trafficking, leaving them worse off than before, and as such any politician in favor of this bill is actually working overtime on the side of those creating and sharing CSAM rather than against them.
Politicians love them some simplistic 'think of the children' to shut thought and opposition down so the solution is simple: use it against them. Any politician who supports and signs on to this bill should be treated as someone in favor of CSAM and against the children. Do not pass GO, do not let them spin this as them protecting children, support for this bill is support for CSAM.
On the post: ID.me Finally Admits It Runs Selfies Against Preexisting Databases As IRS Reconsiders Its Partnership With The Company
'We set that precedent and we're going to be SO busy...'
Of course not, he's got money, is involved with the government(even if only to lie to them), and his victims are just average citizens, they certainly don't want to set the precedent that any of that is worthy of a 'chat' with the FBI.
On the post: Suicide Hotline Collected, Monetized The Data Of Desperate People, Because Of Course It Did
Re: There's indifference, there's evil, and then there's THIS...
... no idea why I went with 'levity' there, guess I was just looking for something less depressing than the article and latched onto whatever I could find, poor word choice though.
On the post: Massachusetts Court Says Breathaylzers Are A-OK Less Than Three Months After Declaring Them Hot Garbage
Re: For all those harping on corrupt cops
It's a symbiotic relationship when it comes to preying upon the public, the police violate the rights/lives, the prosecutors bring the hammer down on the victims and the judges give it all the stamp of approval and/or shield the police should anyone have the audacity to try to argue that the police are ever wrong.
On the post: Suicide Hotline Collected, Monetized The Data Of Desperate People, Because Of Course It Did
There's indifference, there's evil, and then there's THIS...
One, it's 2021 and we still don't have even a basic privacy law
Typo or article just been sitting in the queue for a long time?
Moment of levity aside it takes a truly spectacular type of scumbag to look at a suicide prevention hotline job and ask yourself 'How can we not only monetize this but do so in a way that has a very real chance of decreasing the willingness of people to contact us, potentially with lethal results?', so it looks like barely a month into the year and we've already got a two-for-one contender for 'Biggest Asshole of 2022'.
Whatever greedy wastes of flesh that were involved need to be publicly fired, with an announcement that such behavior is absolutely out of bounds because as it stands they just made clear that as much as they might claim to care about the people who contact them they have no problem exploiting those people for a quick buck.
On the post: Massachusetts Court Says Breathaylzers Are A-OK Less Than Three Months After Declaring Them Hot Garbage
'It's not MY freedom at risk so it's good enough.'
Brennan's decision notes there's no such thing as "perfect source code" or "flawless machines."
... Said the person who will never find himself on the receiving end of the tech in question where a false positive could have serious consequences on his life.
It's easy to say that questionable tech is good enough to lock someone up and/or hit them with serious fines when you will never face that risk, however even making that argument should be enough to see him removed from the bench as wildly unfit for the job.
On the post: Massachusetts Court Says Breathaylzers Are A-OK Less Than Three Months After Declaring Them Hot Garbage
The 'you first' test
Oh you could solve so many problems if those making these decisions and/or arguing for the infallibility of the tech involved had to risk their freedom and rights on the accuracy of that same tech...
On the post: Governor Inslee Wants To Jail Politicians Who Lie? What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
'It's fine, they'd never have that power...'
So many of these laws seem to be written in the naïve belief that political opponents will never use those laws or never be in power themselves. And that is a very dangerous assumption, which historically never seems to hold up.
You'd think someone who's been alive during the past presidency would understand why criminalizing 'lies' is a huge pitfall that will be weaponized... they either have a really short memory or incredibly naivety I guess.
The first test any proposed or even considered law should be run through should always be 'Would I feel comfortable if my absolute worst enemy were to have the ability to make use of my suggestion/law to the fullest possible(so not just what you plan on using it for but what it could be used for) extent the second it's put into the books?'
Doesn't matter how unlikely you think that possibility is, how sure you are that whoever that is would never have that power, if you can't confidently and with no hesitation answer 'yes' to that question then it's a bad law/idea.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Re: Re: New ISPs
I guarantee you that if it reaches that point a special session will come about to add a 'minor little addendum/clarification' to the law that will just so happen to exempt their own platforms and allow them to keep kicking people off for offending the Dear Leader and his cultists.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Re: Car analogy (now don't start that again!)
Given the explicit exemption of ISP's it's rather like making privately owned roads that everyone uses exempt from laws regarding who they can and can not prohibit from using the road while placing the individual stores the road connects to under those same laws, despite the fact that if you can't use the road you can't access any of the stores.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
'Finally, they can't show my uncle out the door anymore!'
But if they want to go on the record as saying Twitter should be forced to host Klan propaganda…well, I hope someone points out how this law is saying exactly that.
The problem is that the people they're pandering to would likely see 'forced to host overtly racist content' as a feature, not a bug.
That said it would still be worthwhile to force that admission, it'd be hilarious to see georgia politicians fall into the same trap that texas republicans walked right into by saying the quiet part out loud.
Next >>