"ou realize that people are able to see when you posted right, in particular the fact that your 'censorship' lasted(as of this post) 15 hours at most, most of that taking place in the wee hours of monday morning when most people could safely be expected to be asleep or waking up. I mean it's nice that you apparently have nothing to do that requires sleep and enables you to check something 24/7, but I'm afraid to tell you others aren't usually so blessed."
You miss the point. Delaying the posts BECAUSE they come from me is a form of censorship - 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day... doesn't matter. Techdirt treats my comments differently because it's me. Are your posts delayed? Nope. I am censored, you are not.
Perhaps you would want to address the real question, why are my posts censored and "moderated"? Is that truly a great example of free speech on a site that hangs almost everything on the 1st amendment?
People do pay for music, this is true - however, there are now huge sources of music where the consumer does not pay (either purchase, subcription, or advertising that in part pays to the artists / creator / rights holders) and that is very different from 20 or 30 years ago. Yes, an artist has to work to stand out, but then again, if every artist is doing the same thing to stand out, will anyone really stand out? If enough photographers use the public domain as an ad tool, at what point do they cannibalize the actual market for photographs? Even free has a cost in how it changes the market place.
The problem here is that both sides are right. Oliver is right pointing out all the various problems, but the print media types are also right pointing out that merely pointing and laughing isn't going to help find a solution.
Like it or not, since the start of modern media, we have worked on a model of "advertiser pays" being the main income source. Yes, print paper and magazines have generally charged a token fee for their papers (usually enough to pay the newsstand and the distribution costs) but not much more. The real income has been made on advertising.
TV and other media have generally worked the same way. Pay channels and pay per view have been the exception rather than the rule, and channels like HBO have done really well over the years with the model. However, even they can tell you that the internet, piracy, and the "digital leak" is slowly draining away subscribers and income. Some of them have moved to streaming and it's somewhat successful, but it's doubtful they will ever make it back to their peak days.
Newspapers have no such fall back plan. Putting the news online isn't as cheap as we with it was, and with online ad rates being VERY low, they are put into the unhappy situation of having to load up every page with way too many ads, pop unders, and various forms of subscription models to try to make it pay out.
The end result of this has been the rise of ad blockers, and now the arms race between ad blockers and ad disguisers. So they are forced into unfamiliar territory, and generally they fail there.
The reality is simple: The internet has taught people (a) don't pay unless you absolutely, positively have to, and (b) blocking ads and other things that might help to pay for content is not only acceptable, it's "good for the internet". Since advertisers pay to be seen and are NOT being seen, they don't pay. Since people generally won't pay a subscription fee for content that is soon all over the place for free, they can't get it done there either.
The end result is a stalemate. Most of the ideas tossed around to "save" the print media generally don't come with any true income stream, just a vague notion of being somehow "valuable" online. Big media companies aren't going to trade their content for a vague shot at being online famous. So the problem remains.
My guess is that more print media outlets will fail, more "true" news sources will disappear, and the internet brand of insanely slanted opinion as news (started by Fox News, honestly) will win the day. People want to hear what they want to hear, they don't want the facts they want to be told they are right. It's one of the many reasons my posts are censored, moderated, and withheld here at Techdirt, because I say the things that most people don't want to deal with. We may have reached an interesting crossroads in the life of the internet where misinformation and self-congratulatory "journalism" will actually overwhelm the truth.
Don't think so? You only have to check out Drudge and the whole "hillary cough" and "hillary health" and "#hillaryhealth" thing. It's not news, it's misrepresentation of situations and actions to create a fictional narrative that people buy into not because it's true, but because they want it to be true.
Congrats people, you got the internet you always wanted!
Actually, there was a pretty big gap between those two points. CB radio died pretty much all by itself, collapsing in on itself for a bunch of reasons, but a few are key:
When you are putting 1 million new people into something a month, your "new" pool tends to dry up really fast. It didn't take long for everyone who had even a passing interest to get involved, get bored, and leave. With a limited number of channels, the usefulness of a CB radio pretty much diminished to nil as quickly as it went up.
CB radio also faced a major technical issue, which was "skip" and sun spot interference. AM transmissions, even from a small 4 watt transmitter, can travel insane distances in this particular band. The signals bounce off the atmosphere when charged by sunlight, and this allows for very long distance communications. It also raises the noise level of junk signals to a point where during the day, CB radio was useless for communications of more than about a mile.
Relaxed and easier amateur radio licensing in many places also absorbed many of the more serious technical types, who moved away from the crowded and often profane "chicken band" and went "pro" on the 2 meter band.
There was roughly a 10 year gap between the effective end of CB as a fad and the start of meaningful cellular service. One did not kill the other.
Sort of a dumb story, because it's playing against a straw man:
"everyone says the public domain is bad".
The problem is quite simple: For someone who is relatively unknown, or has only a small local following, there are certain advantages to licensing your work for free (see, he doesn't use the public domain, but a very unrestricted license, the work is still copyright). Any exposure when you are unknown is good exposure.
Now, you can also be entirely certainly that not all of his work is in the "public domain". Just like free samples out front of the cookie store, he's not giving away bags of cookies just for fun - he's marketing and promoting his brand.
Would it work for everyone? Well, here's the rub: if too many people are giving away "free food", then consumers will just walk around enjoying all the freebies and won't buy any more. If a free sample is too generous, or there are too many of them, then the promotional effects may be outweighed by the erosion of the marketplace.
So except for a whole lot of straw on the ground from mowing down yet another strawman, the article accomplishes very little because it doesn't consider the wider implications or how this would work if more people were doing it.
(oh, and this comment delayed 24 hours be the Techdirt board of Censorship)
Good try, but you fail. See, the internet isn't a single thing. You would have been better saying "Myspace, just a passing fad" because then you would have proved the point.
Personal drones are for the most part an end point technology, something that is cool as hell but in the end not particularly practical for most of us. There will still be many people in the future using them for things (like shooting video from the air), but as a toy / fed they appear to have about the same shelf life as many others that have gone before them.
Confusing industrial use (delivery) with personal use (flying around the park) can also confuse your view on their future. Amazon may find a good use for them, but the toy fad is likely just that.
When I was a kid, it seems like everyone had one, in the car, at home, antennas popping off of balconies, roof tops, everyone walking around talking like truckers... it was awesome! At peak, the FCC was receiving 1 million license applications PER MONTH.
Now, look around, and see how many CB radios there are. Outside of an 18 wheeler, you are about as likely to find an 8 track player.
Rapid growth often means a very quick fall as well. Once people get over the initial burst of the new thing (like drones) they will dump them for the next insta-fad, like say pokemon.
The problem, Mr Baiter, is that it took 24 hours for my post to appear. In most cases, that is a conversation killer. If you look, many of my comments go entirely unanswered even as others have plenty of response, and that is almost entirely due to the fact that by the time they are added, they are no longer relevant or the discussion has moved on.
Remember, the time and date stamp is the time I posted it, NOT the time that Mike's Minions deemed it worthy and added it on the site. That's another sneaky deception.
"You're not being shouted down; it's simply that more than one person finds it bewildering that you dedicate so much time and obsession on a website you openly loathe."
I don't loathe the website at all. It's a good forum for discussion and looking at the other side of things (for me). What I loathe is people who are unwilling to consider the other side or are too stuck on a single tangent to accept that there may be alternate views on most stories that make about as much sense as the party line.
I would say that perhaps you should worry less about me personally and try addressing the opinions (no matter how delayed they may be). Perhaps you would like to ask Mike why my posts are delayed before posting, and yours are not?
I don't find this one troubling at all, rather I find it refreshing that the court didn't pull the section 230 covers even wider to protect people who represent the website in any form.
A moderator, editor, or curator who is selected by the company to represent them does just that. Making comments and claims which are defamatory while working in that position (paid or unpaid, the prestige is pay enough for many) is speaking as part of the company / website, and not as an individual.
So the case may or may not have merit, but section 230 isn't (and shouldn't) protect bleeping computer in this case.
Actually, it does not. Mike writes many of the stories, so I tend to address him. For Paul, he tends to come out like a rabid attack dog trying to tear down everything I say. I could say the sky is blue and he would say I was delusional. He thinks he can shout me down, and that's just not the case.
I think you still miss the point: Why are my posts specifically delayed by nobody elses are? Do you not see censorship in action here?
I think if you read the story more closely, you will see that the FCC has relaxed it's rules and as such, TP Link is more willing to allow for third party stuff.
Nice to see a number of the more intelligent people out there handing karl is ass for this insanely stupid post.
Karl, the six people who knocked on the door are the tip of the iceberg, the polite few. How many more have tried to sneak in, or have snuck in, or have been on his private property while he has been away?
The reality is that this game is making people do stupid things, and is encouraging them to trespass and to access places that are not safe to access.
Demeaning the guy filing the lawsuit is pretty cheap, Karl, even for you!
It's my opinion. Read the story, he has been a "victim" before, seems a little odd that someone in that position would allow it to happen repeatedly.
As for the speed of replies, it's because I happened to post it early on a Monday, and one of the minions approved it more quickly (mostly I think because I am complaining about it, and guys like Leigh love to try to make me look bad). Otherwise, I post comments on Friday and Saturday and I get to wait until Monday for them to get published.
This one is a good example, posted on the 31st by me, but first answer is 24 hours later (Monday again) after the minions have deemed my post worthy. it's a form of censorship, one that Mike is loath to address. he would rip a new eye hole for any other site doing it, but in his own world, it's entirely acceptable. It's really a shame, and shows perhaps more of his true nature.
Holy crap, talk about over reaction. Not the government guy, but you Mike.
His point is clear: He thinks that, like the KKK, this guys views are extremist and perhaps even illegal, but fall just inside the lines of free speech. He doesn't equate him to being racist or anything, just that he is "out there".
He could have said "Westboro Basptist Church" or "Fox News" or "Rick Falkvinge" and it would have meant the same thing.
Seriously, lighten up! Stop trying to find a second gunman behind every grassy knoll, it really takes away from the quality of the site.
I can't debate you (or anyone else) when my posts take 24 to 48 hours to appear...
Don't you get it? Techdirt is censoring my posts (by delaying them enough to be less relevant). This on a site that pushes endlessly for free speech.
Oh, and anonymous coward, I don't spam. EVER. I just express an opinion or two that isn't in keeping with the Techdirt view of the world, which gets some people's knickers in a bunch.
Part of the problem with a "right to know" type law is that it basically makes the police into the position of giving legal advice beyond what is required by federal law. If that legal advice is wrong or in any way misleading, then the police will (once again) eat a big pile of legal shit for it.
What NYC really needs to do is to work to EDUCATE the population. Get them the information before they need it, and take responsibility for it. Forcing the cops to do it shifts the liability away from the law makers and onto individual officers, which is truly wussing out. Public education, addressing the issues, and perhaps also coming out and explaining why aggressively resisting arrest and yelling about "mah rites" and fighting with officers is NOT a good idea.
Perhaps a better idea would be to put a public defender lawyer in every police car. When the police approach someone, the lawyer gets automatically assigned and can advocate for them.
Oh side note: I am posting this at about 1 AM saturday morning, and Techdirt in their infinite wisdom will likely actually add it to the discussion on Monday. You guys should be incredibly upset that a site that claims to love free speech feels the need to censor comments because they don't agree with them.
Mike Masnick, would you care to address the issues at hand?
"Even utilities that bill per unit of consumption be it kWh or liters they still have to be able to fully serve the customers at any time if they demand it"
Incorrect. You can figure this out in two ways:
1 - blackouts during peak demand times. This is because demand exceeds the ability of the network to deliver.
2 - Assuming every residence has a 100amp entrance (many have 200) and each business has the same, just take the number of addresses in your area and figure out what the actual "peak peak peak" demand would be. It far exceeds their ability to produce or obtain power.
The power companies work on the assumption that the moment you happen to be running full AC, the dryer, your electric stove and water heater all at the same time that they guy next door went out to the store. It balances out.
"It doesn't matter if you use it to transport 1 car or pack it full of cars. "
You miss the point. Imagine for a moment that the road outside your house had to be as wide as your driveway, muliplied by the number of driveways. When that road got to the main road, that main road would have to be the size of all of the connecting roads, and so on. There is no possible way to make that happen. Building a huge private road just from your driveway to your destination is wasteful. Provisioning 100% of your bandwidth END TO END 100% of the time is wasteful as well.
On the post: Photographer Learns To Embrace The Public Domain... And Is Better Off For It
Re: Re:
You miss the point. Delaying the posts BECAUSE they come from me is a form of censorship - 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day... doesn't matter. Techdirt treats my comments differently because it's me. Are your posts delayed? Nope. I am censored, you are not.
Perhaps you would want to address the real question, why are my posts censored and "moderated"? Is that truly a great example of free speech on a site that hangs almost everything on the 1st amendment?
People do pay for music, this is true - however, there are now huge sources of music where the consumer does not pay (either purchase, subcription, or advertising that in part pays to the artists / creator / rights holders) and that is very different from 20 or 30 years ago. Yes, an artist has to work to stand out, but then again, if every artist is doing the same thing to stand out, will anyone really stand out? If enough photographers use the public domain as an ad tool, at what point do they cannibalize the actual market for photographs? Even free has a cost in how it changes the market place.
On the post: Newspaper Association Of America Complains That Comedian John Oliver Failed To Solve Newspaper Biz Model Problem
Oliver, problems, and failing to move forward
Like it or not, since the start of modern media, we have worked on a model of "advertiser pays" being the main income source. Yes, print paper and magazines have generally charged a token fee for their papers (usually enough to pay the newsstand and the distribution costs) but not much more. The real income has been made on advertising.
TV and other media have generally worked the same way. Pay channels and pay per view have been the exception rather than the rule, and channels like HBO have done really well over the years with the model. However, even they can tell you that the internet, piracy, and the "digital leak" is slowly draining away subscribers and income. Some of them have moved to streaming and it's somewhat successful, but it's doubtful they will ever make it back to their peak days.
Newspapers have no such fall back plan. Putting the news online isn't as cheap as we with it was, and with online ad rates being VERY low, they are put into the unhappy situation of having to load up every page with way too many ads, pop unders, and various forms of subscription models to try to make it pay out.
The end result of this has been the rise of ad blockers, and now the arms race between ad blockers and ad disguisers. So they are forced into unfamiliar territory, and generally they fail there.
The reality is simple: The internet has taught people (a) don't pay unless you absolutely, positively have to, and (b) blocking ads and other things that might help to pay for content is not only acceptable, it's "good for the internet". Since advertisers pay to be seen and are NOT being seen, they don't pay. Since people generally won't pay a subscription fee for content that is soon all over the place for free, they can't get it done there either.
The end result is a stalemate. Most of the ideas tossed around to "save" the print media generally don't come with any true income stream, just a vague notion of being somehow "valuable" online. Big media companies aren't going to trade their content for a vague shot at being online famous. So the problem remains.
My guess is that more print media outlets will fail, more "true" news sources will disappear, and the internet brand of insanely slanted opinion as news (started by Fox News, honestly) will win the day. People want to hear what they want to hear, they don't want the facts they want to be told they are right. It's one of the many reasons my posts are censored, moderated, and withheld here at Techdirt, because I say the things that most people don't want to deal with. We may have reached an interesting crossroads in the life of the internet where misinformation and self-congratulatory "journalism" will actually overwhelm the truth.
Don't think so? You only have to check out Drudge and the whole "hillary cough" and "hillary health" and "#hillaryhealth" thing. It's not news, it's misrepresentation of situations and actions to create a fictional narrative that people buy into not because it's true, but because they want it to be true.
Congrats people, you got the internet you always wanted!
On the post: After The Age Of The PC, Welcome To The Age Of The PD -- The 'Personal Drone'
Re: Re:
When you are putting 1 million new people into something a month, your "new" pool tends to dry up really fast. It didn't take long for everyone who had even a passing interest to get involved, get bored, and leave. With a limited number of channels, the usefulness of a CB radio pretty much diminished to nil as quickly as it went up.
CB radio also faced a major technical issue, which was "skip" and sun spot interference. AM transmissions, even from a small 4 watt transmitter, can travel insane distances in this particular band. The signals bounce off the atmosphere when charged by sunlight, and this allows for very long distance communications. It also raises the noise level of junk signals to a point where during the day, CB radio was useless for communications of more than about a mile.
Relaxed and easier amateur radio licensing in many places also absorbed many of the more serious technical types, who moved away from the crowded and often profane "chicken band" and went "pro" on the 2 meter band.
There was roughly a 10 year gap between the effective end of CB as a fad and the start of meaningful cellular service. One did not kill the other.
On the post: Photographer Learns To Embrace The Public Domain... And Is Better Off For It
"everyone says the public domain is bad".
The problem is quite simple: For someone who is relatively unknown, or has only a small local following, there are certain advantages to licensing your work for free (see, he doesn't use the public domain, but a very unrestricted license, the work is still copyright). Any exposure when you are unknown is good exposure.
Now, you can also be entirely certainly that not all of his work is in the "public domain". Just like free samples out front of the cookie store, he's not giving away bags of cookies just for fun - he's marketing and promoting his brand.
Would it work for everyone? Well, here's the rub: if too many people are giving away "free food", then consumers will just walk around enjoying all the freebies and won't buy any more. If a free sample is too generous, or there are too many of them, then the promotional effects may be outweighed by the erosion of the marketplace.
So except for a whole lot of straw on the ground from mowing down yet another strawman, the article accomplishes very little because it doesn't consider the wider implications or how this would work if more people were doing it.
(oh, and this comment delayed 24 hours be the Techdirt board of Censorship)
On the post: After The Age Of The PC, Welcome To The Age Of The PD -- The 'Personal Drone'
Re: Re:
Personal drones are for the most part an end point technology, something that is cool as hell but in the end not particularly practical for most of us. There will still be many people in the future using them for things (like shooting video from the air), but as a toy / fed they appear to have about the same shelf life as many others that have gone before them.
Confusing industrial use (delivery) with personal use (flying around the park) can also confuse your view on their future. Amazon may find a good use for them, but the toy fad is likely just that.
On the post: After The Age Of The PC, Welcome To The Age Of The PD -- The 'Personal Drone'
When I was a kid, it seems like everyone had one, in the car, at home, antennas popping off of balconies, roof tops, everyone walking around talking like truckers... it was awesome! At peak, the FCC was receiving 1 million license applications PER MONTH.
Now, look around, and see how many CB radios there are. Outside of an 18 wheeler, you are about as likely to find an 8 track player.
Rapid growth often means a very quick fall as well. Once people get over the initial burst of the new thing (like drones) they will dump them for the next insta-fad, like say pokemon.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember, the time and date stamp is the time I posted it, NOT the time that Mike's Minions deemed it worthy and added it on the site. That's another sneaky deception.
"You're not being shouted down; it's simply that more than one person finds it bewildering that you dedicate so much time and obsession on a website you openly loathe."
I don't loathe the website at all. It's a good forum for discussion and looking at the other side of things (for me). What I loathe is people who are unwilling to consider the other side or are too stuck on a single tangent to accept that there may be alternate views on most stories that make about as much sense as the party line.
I would say that perhaps you should worry less about me personally and try addressing the opinions (no matter how delayed they may be). Perhaps you would like to ask Mike why my posts are delayed before posting, and yours are not?
On the post: Bizarre Decision Keeps Hope Alive In Enigma Software's Defamation Suit Against BleepingComputer
The court got it right, it's not troubling at all
A moderator, editor, or curator who is selected by the company to represent them does just that. Making comments and claims which are defamatory while working in that position (paid or unpaid, the prestige is pay enough for many) is speaking as part of the company / website, and not as an individual.
So the case may or may not have merit, but section 230 isn't (and shouldn't) protect bleeping computer in this case.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you still miss the point: Why are my posts specifically delayed by nobody elses are? Do you not see censorship in action here?
On the post: Director Of National Intelligence 'Celebrates' National Whistleblower Day... Without Mentioning Snowden Once
On the post: FCC Demands TP-Link Support Open Source Third-Party Firmware On Its Routers
It seems that the FCC and not TP Link "blinked".
On the post: New Jersey Man Files Lawsuit Over Pokemon Go After A Few Players Politely Knocked On His Door
Karl, the six people who knocked on the door are the tip of the iceberg, the polite few. How many more have tried to sneak in, or have snuck in, or have been on his private property while he has been away?
The reality is that this game is making people do stupid things, and is encouraging them to trespass and to access places that are not safe to access.
Demeaning the guy filing the lawsuit is pretty cheap, Karl, even for you!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the speed of replies, it's because I happened to post it early on a Monday, and one of the minions approved it more quickly (mostly I think because I am complaining about it, and guys like Leigh love to try to make me look bad). Otherwise, I post comments on Friday and Saturday and I get to wait until Monday for them to get published.
This one is a good example, posted on the 31st by me, but first answer is 24 hours later (Monday again) after the minions have deemed my post worthy. it's a form of censorship, one that Mike is loath to address. he would rip a new eye hole for any other site doing it, but in his own world, it's entirely acceptable. It's really a shame, and shows perhaps more of his true nature.
On the post: FBI Official Compares Encryption Guru Moxie Marlinspike To The KKK, Refuses To Discuss Him
Over Reaction Much?
His point is clear: He thinks that, like the KKK, this guys views are extremist and perhaps even illegal, but fall just inside the lines of free speech. He doesn't equate him to being racist or anything, just that he is "out there".
He could have said "Westboro Basptist Church" or "Fox News" or "Rick Falkvinge" and it would have meant the same thing.
Seriously, lighten up! Stop trying to find a second gunman behind every grassy knoll, it really takes away from the quality of the site.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
Don't you get it? Techdirt is censoring my posts (by delaying them enough to be less relevant). This on a site that pushes endlessly for free speech.
Oh, and anonymous coward, I don't spam. EVER. I just express an opinion or two that isn't in keeping with the Techdirt view of the world, which gets some people's knickers in a bunch.
On the post: Intelligence Community's Top Whistleblower Protector In Need Of Some Whistleblower Protection
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: NYPD Dodges Another Legislative Attempt To Inject Accountability And Transparency Into Its Daily Work
What NYC really needs to do is to work to EDUCATE the population. Get them the information before they need it, and take responsibility for it. Forcing the cops to do it shifts the liability away from the law makers and onto individual officers, which is truly wussing out. Public education, addressing the issues, and perhaps also coming out and explaining why aggressively resisting arrest and yelling about "mah rites" and fighting with officers is NOT a good idea.
Perhaps a better idea would be to put a public defender lawyer in every police car. When the police approach someone, the lawyer gets automatically assigned and can advocate for them.
Oh side note: I am posting this at about 1 AM saturday morning, and Techdirt in their infinite wisdom will likely actually add it to the discussion on Monday. You guys should be incredibly upset that a site that claims to love free speech feels the need to censor comments because they don't agree with them.
Mike Masnick, would you care to address the issues at hand?
On the post: 'Wish I Had The Power' To Hack Enemies' Emails, Says Man Very Close To Having Such Power
On the post: Wireless Industry To Request En Banc Appeal Hearing On Net Neutrality Rules
Re: Re:
Incorrect. You can figure this out in two ways:
1 - blackouts during peak demand times. This is because demand exceeds the ability of the network to deliver.
2 - Assuming every residence has a 100amp entrance (many have 200) and each business has the same, just take the number of addresses in your area and figure out what the actual "peak peak peak" demand would be. It far exceeds their ability to produce or obtain power.
The power companies work on the assumption that the moment you happen to be running full AC, the dryer, your electric stove and water heater all at the same time that they guy next door went out to the store. It balances out.
"It doesn't matter if you use it to transport 1 car or pack it full of cars. "
You miss the point. Imagine for a moment that the road outside your house had to be as wide as your driveway, muliplied by the number of driveways. When that road got to the main road, that main road would have to be the size of all of the connecting roads, and so on. There is no possible way to make that happen. Building a huge private road just from your driveway to your destination is wasteful. Provisioning 100% of your bandwidth END TO END 100% of the time is wasteful as well.
Next >>