"The problem isn’t private business decisions. It’s blindly praising them when they fit your personal view."
Except, again, that's not what's really happening. You're substituting your own imagined parameters to what others are saying and whining as if people wouldn't act the same way if some imaginary agitprop network on a different side of the political spectrum had the same problem.
This is, once again, a product of your weak imagination, and while it's a tactic often employed by weak-willed right-wingers to pretend that people aren't simply facing consequences for their own actions, it's never actually the case.
I'll admit my ignorance here as I've never uploaded anything to YouTube, but is that not already the case? I've certainly seen a number of things like, say, UK panel shows that are blocked in the UK but available elsewhere, and looking at the accounts involved I have doubts that they were official feeds.
The main problem here is that the average YouTuber doesn't really know anything about copyright and its vagaries. Most would understand that if they're uploading an entire unedited movie but they wouldn't necessarily understand the different issues even if you start talking about fair use and such. Most sure as hell won't have a lawyer anyway, at least not at first. The majority of YouTubers start out as hobbyists doing something they think is cool well before they start thinking about it as a business.
A feature for established or experienced YouTubers would help avoid issues with well-known pitfalls like anime and Japan, but it would most likely confuse anyone else and lead them to either massively restrict their audience without reason, or they pick the wrong option and get in trouble regardless.
Re: Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Services
"It too the merry band of Mike's misfits 2 days to come up with that response?"
Lol. It you posted on a 3 day old thread with nonsense, and you think it's a win because the only person to bother clicking the link on the email informing him that it was here took a day and a half to see it?
"If the US congress wishes to change the definition of common carrier to include social media, they can. What the current definition is or what Mike thinks the current definition is means absolutely nothing."
So, your argument is that what the rules actually are now don't matter, the real issue to address is the possible future you made up in your head?
Why do you guys always base your arguments on a fictional reality?
Worthless as in "we won't have direct leverage by having a sycophant like Pai in the office"?. That seems to be the main problem.
You have to love the desperation here, though. If people think that Sohn will be good at her job, it's an attempt at mind reading and has no basis in reality, but claim she'll be worthless based on the same evidence and that's just common sense. Sure, Jan...
That's somewhat easier when you have a studio that currently makes a single franchise whose main legacy product is already owned by your main competitor, than it is to state when you're dealing with studios who own large numbers of successful IPs.
Also, if you believe Sony at their word and there's no possibility they'll change their mind once the full plans for the Activision merger come out after the deal has been finalised, there's probably a nice bridge somewhere for you to buy. Remember - one of these companies has been dead set against allowing their franchises on other platforms, has battled cross-platform play, built entire ecosystems based on avoiding compatible standards, etc., and it ain't Microsoft.
It will be nice if they keep their word, but I don't see why Sony has built up any more trust than Microsoft.
What's funny here is that it's not really a partisan issue unless you have chosen to believe that people would react in a completely different way if their "team" is affected. Which seems to be way more of an issue of projection on the side of people complaining about this as if it were somehow a free speech issue (which it's not) than anything that is proven by actual activity.
The only way we would possibly be able to tell is if there was a similar issue with some "leftist" network, but since that's not happening and there doesn't even seem to be a comparable network outside of desperate attempts to draw false equivalence between MSNBC and OANN, we would just need to wait to see if that ever happens.
In the meantime, all I can say is that the poorly and hastily constructed strawmen that Lobos insists on attacking instead of my actual positions might be partisan, but they rarely reflect things I actually say or believe. My actual position is that if a supplier decides to not renew a contract with another network then that's up to them, and whatever criticisms I have of that decision won't devolve into "but mah freeze peach!" nonsense no matter how much I agree with the output of that particular network.
Sure, his bragging definitely didn't help, and it likely brought a bunch of complaints to Apple's attention that compelled a more immediate response.
But, even if he'd have managed to fly under the radar for a bit, what he did was fundamentally based on misleading consumers into paying a subscription, so he would have got into some trouble eventually.
He could have made some minor changes, used a different name for the app and promoted it along the lines of "if you like Wordle but want more puzzles every day and different word lengths, you'll love this", and he could likely have been a success. But, the arrogance combined with the appearance of trying to defraud people did him in.
Nobody's saying any such thing. However, even though the smart money would be on not depending on using more than one supplier to grow your business, there's multiple other issues here. Such as - when 2 countries have vastly different laws surrounding copyright, and there's a dispute between opposing parties based in those countries, how should it be dealt with? How can a person affected by the law in a country they never visit nor intend their content to be viewed in avoid issues relating to that? How should a company deal with legal threats against its own user base when they've not broken any law where either the user or the company is based?
The issues here go way beyond YouTube, and pretending that people are saying different things to the actual word they typed won't help your cause.
"If your support of a speech stops at what you dislike you fail to support all speech."
I would support DirectTV's decision not to carry a channel I agree with as well, so stop with your pathetic whataboutism and strawmen.
I just happen not to support positions and people who are so dangerous, toxic and offensive that people feel the need to tell them to go elsewhere all the time.
"That’s where you open yourself to actual censorship."
I'll deal with actual censorship when I see it. No matter how much you pathetic losers keep whining about it, a company deciding not to renew a business contract with a supplier is not censorship. In fact, there's probably more of you Murdoch zombies peddling the same broken version of events that you've been programmed to believe than there were people who watched OANN in the first place. You see, the tell is not that you all say the same stuff, it's that the misrepresentation always depends on believing the same false narrative that nobody gets to by looking at actual facts.
"If a location had a sound and that sound was removed from that location then the sound has been silenced at that location."
OK, so let's take your drooling nonsense here at face value.
So what? You don't have a right to speak at a specific location, except maybe at certain public venues (government owned, not private property that allows some public access). If the owners or other patrons tell you to STFU and go elsewhere to speak that's their right, and your desire to keep being a loudmouthed dickhead at that specific location does not override them.
So, no rights have been affected, no matter how much you whine that you wish it were true. Nobody has been truly silenced, because they're still allowed to speak literally anywhere else. If your speech is so sensitive, that you can only effectively speak by co-opting a specific piece of property that's owned by someone else against their will, that's on you.
Everyone you know maybe if you're in a particularly small and knowledgable group of friends, but that's sure as hell not been a message stated in the mainstream.
Sadly, it doesn't really matter. Whether or not it's because of sheer incompetence in understanding the data in front of them, or it's a misleading stat presented to convince the clueless that they have to "do something", the end result is the same. The fix is the same either way - change the political system so that there's less self-serving con artists and outright morons able to grandstand like this - but it's not one likely to appear in the near future.
It's not brain damage so much as it fits into the same issues you come across with "zero tolerance", where things like nuance and common sense are not allowed to enter the discussion. No matter what Japanese law says, common sense should indicate that it doesn't apply globally, and that where it comes into conflict with the law of other countries, the sensible response is to block videos for Japanese viewers and not globally. We know granular response is possible due to all the videos blocked to German audiences and not elsewhere, so it should have been a no brainer to apply a block to Japan here. Not a problem unless you're trying to apply a "one size fits all" response to every issue, which again common sense would state is not really possible on a global scale.
It's is still a problem, it just means that it shifts the blame away from individual corporations doing something, and more of a problem with the expectation that the only true and valid way of dealing with copyright issues is the US one. If responses can allow more restrictive (and less restrictive) responses in regions that demand them while keeping the "default" response that a US corporation would use for US hosts intact, then that should lead to less friction. Although I still expect US corporations to continue to demand that US law applies everywhere.
"“I’m not going to lie, hearing a human voice that felt both sincerely eager to help and understanding of this impossible situation felt like a weight lifted off my shoulders,” Fitzpatrick said."
That is actually quite comforting to hear in many ways. There's 2 major issues with the typical situation. One is that it's set up in a way where YouTube essentially have to err on the side of the entity complaining - even they don't have the resources to individually evaluate each and every complaint they get, and despite all the horrible potential abuses we hear I'm sure that a majority are actually valid complaints. So, the automated response is always going to act as if the person filing what should be a complaint backed with the threat of perjury if they're lying is correct, no matter how flawed that assumption is.
But, the second major issue - that when a person is faced with a false complaint, or one that isn't a simple open and shut case, it can be very difficult to get someone at YouTube who isn't an algorithm or bot to examine the case and try and work something out. This hopefully indicates more resources at YouTube's end to deal with this, and in theory it should work to negotiate more granular approaches like this.
Let's see if this is a one off due to the publicity on this one case, or an actual change in the way they deal with complaints.
"For this wordle ripoff guy to succeed, the original wordle app must be significantly worse"
You would know this if you were capable of taking in information that relates to the real world, but - there was no "original" Wordle app. It's a website, not an app. Which is why the ripoff artist got in trouble - he was making money defrauding people into thinking the app he was selling was related to the original.
Which it doesn't. Nothing happens without deliberate activity on the behalf of the user trying to share. Which would only make sense as complaint if...
"The keyword is "automatically". I.e. without active participation of the original developers."
Fuck, so you are saying that people talking about your product should be illegal.
I do love the progression here. You've gone from stating that it's unfair that people get paid for success, to claiming that it should be illegal to let your audience talk about you. What next - lock everyone up because they demand a product that actually runs?
Funnily enough, I've never shared my scores on social media. Part of that is because my first couple of games were embarrassingly poor, and partly because I don't necessarily play every day. I'll banter a bit with friends if I spot someone who did worse (or better) than I did, but I don't view it as anything but a distraction for a few moments in the same way others would view the daily crossword or such things (which is why the NYT have bought it).
But, according to this guy what I did isn't possible. Yet another example of a failure so complete, he can't deal with the same universe the rest of us occupy.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The problem isn’t private business decisions. It’s blindly praising them when they fit your personal view."
Except, again, that's not what's really happening. You're substituting your own imagined parameters to what others are saying and whining as if people wouldn't act the same way if some imaginary agitprop network on a different side of the political spectrum had the same problem.
This is, once again, a product of your weak imagination, and while it's a tactic often employed by weak-willed right-wingers to pretend that people aren't simply facing consequences for their own actions, it's never actually the case.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
Re: Youtube Geoblocking
I'll admit my ignorance here as I've never uploaded anything to YouTube, but is that not already the case? I've certainly seen a number of things like, say, UK panel shows that are blocked in the UK but available elsewhere, and looking at the accounts involved I have doubts that they were official feeds.
The main problem here is that the average YouTuber doesn't really know anything about copyright and its vagaries. Most would understand that if they're uploading an entire unedited movie but they wouldn't necessarily understand the different issues even if you start talking about fair use and such. Most sure as hell won't have a lawyer anyway, at least not at first. The majority of YouTubers start out as hobbyists doing something they think is cool well before they start thinking about it as a business.
A feature for established or experienced YouTubers would help avoid issues with well-known pitfalls like anime and Japan, but it would most likely confuse anyone else and lead them to either massively restrict their audience without reason, or they pick the wrong option and get in trouble regardless.
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: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Services
"It too the merry band of Mike's misfits 2 days to come up with that response?"
Lol. It you posted on a 3 day old thread with nonsense, and you think it's a win because the only person to bother clicking the link on the email informing him that it was here took a day and a half to see it?
"If the US congress wishes to change the definition of common carrier to include social media, they can. What the current definition is or what Mike thinks the current definition is means absolutely nothing."
So, your argument is that what the rules actually are now don't matter, the real issue to address is the possible future you made up in your head?
Why do you guys always base your arguments on a fictional reality?
On the post: Hollywood, Media, And Telecom Giants Are Clearly Terrified Gigi Sohn Will Do Her Job At The FCC
Re:
Worthless as in "we won't have direct leverage by having a sycophant like Pai in the office"?. That seems to be the main problem.
You have to love the desperation here, though. If people think that Sohn will be good at her job, it's an attempt at mind reading and has no basis in reality, but claim she'll be worthless based on the same evidence and that's just common sense. Sure, Jan...
On the post: Moar Consolidation: Sony Acquires Bungie, But Appears To Be More Hands Off Than Microsoft
Re: Halo, a Sony exclusive...
They'd struggle with that since Bungie hasn't owned the franchise since 2011.
On the post: Moar Consolidation: Sony Acquires Bungie, But Appears To Be More Hands Off Than Microsoft
Re: Not that hard when you're being honest
That's somewhat easier when you have a studio that currently makes a single franchise whose main legacy product is already owned by your main competitor, than it is to state when you're dealing with studios who own large numbers of successful IPs.
Also, if you believe Sony at their word and there's no possibility they'll change their mind once the full plans for the Activision merger come out after the deal has been finalised, there's probably a nice bridge somewhere for you to buy. Remember - one of these companies has been dead set against allowing their franchises on other platforms, has battled cross-platform play, built entire ecosystems based on avoiding compatible standards, etc., and it ain't Microsoft.
It will be nice if they keep their word, but I don't see why Sony has built up any more trust than Microsoft.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's funny here is that it's not really a partisan issue unless you have chosen to believe that people would react in a completely different way if their "team" is affected. Which seems to be way more of an issue of projection on the side of people complaining about this as if it were somehow a free speech issue (which it's not) than anything that is proven by actual activity.
The only way we would possibly be able to tell is if there was a similar issue with some "leftist" network, but since that's not happening and there doesn't even seem to be a comparable network outside of desperate attempts to draw false equivalence between MSNBC and OANN, we would just need to wait to see if that ever happens.
In the meantime, all I can say is that the poorly and hastily constructed strawmen that Lobos insists on attacking instead of my actual positions might be partisan, but they rarely reflect things I actually say or believe. My actual position is that if a supplier decides to not renew a contract with another network then that's up to them, and whatever criticisms I have of that decision won't devolve into "but mah freeze peach!" nonsense no matter how much I agree with the output of that particular network.
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Re:
Sure, his bragging definitely didn't help, and it likely brought a bunch of complaints to Apple's attention that compelled a more immediate response.
But, even if he'd have managed to fly under the radar for a bit, what he did was fundamentally based on misleading consumers into paying a subscription, so he would have got into some trouble eventually.
He could have made some minor changes, used a different name for the app and promoted it along the lines of "if you like Wordle but want more puzzles every day and different word lengths, you'll love this", and he could likely have been a success. But, the arrogance combined with the appearance of trying to defraud people did him in.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
Re: natural resources
Calm down, you're hallucinating again.
Nobody's saying any such thing. However, even though the smart money would be on not depending on using more than one supplier to grow your business, there's multiple other issues here. Such as - when 2 countries have vastly different laws surrounding copyright, and there's a dispute between opposing parties based in those countries, how should it be dealt with? How can a person affected by the law in a country they never visit nor intend their content to be viewed in avoid issues relating to that? How should a company deal with legal threats against its own user base when they've not broken any law where either the user or the company is based?
The issues here go way beyond YouTube, and pretending that people are saying different things to the actual word they typed won't help your cause.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If your support of a speech stops at what you dislike you fail to support all speech."
I would support DirectTV's decision not to carry a channel I agree with as well, so stop with your pathetic whataboutism and strawmen.
I just happen not to support positions and people who are so dangerous, toxic and offensive that people feel the need to tell them to go elsewhere all the time.
"That’s where you open yourself to actual censorship."
I'll deal with actual censorship when I see it. No matter how much you pathetic losers keep whining about it, a company deciding not to renew a business contract with a supplier is not censorship. In fact, there's probably more of you Murdoch zombies peddling the same broken version of events that you've been programmed to believe than there were people who watched OANN in the first place. You see, the tell is not that you all say the same stuff, it's that the misrepresentation always depends on believing the same false narrative that nobody gets to by looking at actual facts.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If a location had a sound and that sound was removed from that location then the sound has been silenced at that location."
OK, so let's take your drooling nonsense here at face value.
So what? You don't have a right to speak at a specific location, except maybe at certain public venues (government owned, not private property that allows some public access). If the owners or other patrons tell you to STFU and go elsewhere to speak that's their right, and your desire to keep being a loudmouthed dickhead at that specific location does not override them.
So, no rights have been affected, no matter how much you whine that you wish it were true. Nobody has been truly silenced, because they're still allowed to speak literally anywhere else. If your speech is so sensitive, that you can only effectively speak by co-opting a specific piece of property that's owned by someone else against their will, that's on you.
On the post: Suicide Hotline Collected, Monetized The Data Of Desperate People, Because Of Course It Did
Re: Re: Re: In the case of mental health...
"decades of everyone chanting"
Lol, yeah, right...
Everyone you know maybe if you're in a particularly small and knowledgable group of friends, but that's sure as hell not been a message stated in the mainstream.
On the post: Senators' 'Myths & Facts' About EARN IT Is Mostly Myths, Not Facts
Re:
Sadly, it doesn't really matter. Whether or not it's because of sheer incompetence in understanding the data in front of them, or it's a misleading stat presented to convince the clueless that they have to "do something", the end result is the same. The fix is the same either way - change the political system so that there's less self-serving con artists and outright morons able to grandstand like this - but it's not one likely to appear in the near future.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
Re:
It's not brain damage so much as it fits into the same issues you come across with "zero tolerance", where things like nuance and common sense are not allowed to enter the discussion. No matter what Japanese law says, common sense should indicate that it doesn't apply globally, and that where it comes into conflict with the law of other countries, the sensible response is to block videos for Japanese viewers and not globally. We know granular response is possible due to all the videos blocked to German audiences and not elsewhere, so it should have been a no brainer to apply a block to Japan here. Not a problem unless you're trying to apply a "one size fits all" response to every issue, which again common sense would state is not really possible on a global scale.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
Re:
It's is still a problem, it just means that it shifts the blame away from individual corporations doing something, and more of a problem with the expectation that the only true and valid way of dealing with copyright issues is the US one. If responses can allow more restrictive (and less restrictive) responses in regions that demand them while keeping the "default" response that a US corporation would use for US hosts intact, then that should lead to less friction. Although I still expect US corporations to continue to demand that US law applies everywhere.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
"“I’m not going to lie, hearing a human voice that felt both sincerely eager to help and understanding of this impossible situation felt like a weight lifted off my shoulders,” Fitzpatrick said."
That is actually quite comforting to hear in many ways. There's 2 major issues with the typical situation. One is that it's set up in a way where YouTube essentially have to err on the side of the entity complaining - even they don't have the resources to individually evaluate each and every complaint they get, and despite all the horrible potential abuses we hear I'm sure that a majority are actually valid complaints. So, the automated response is always going to act as if the person filing what should be a complaint backed with the threat of perjury if they're lying is correct, no matter how flawed that assumption is.
But, the second major issue - that when a person is faced with a false complaint, or one that isn't a simple open and shut case, it can be very difficult to get someone at YouTube who isn't an algorithm or bot to examine the case and try and work something out. This hopefully indicates more resources at YouTube's end to deal with this, and in theory it should work to negotiate more granular approaches like this.
Let's see if this is a one off due to the publicity on this one case, or an actual change in the way they deal with complaints.
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Re:
Or, fitting in with tp's regular theme - "competition should be illegal, because I fail every time customers have a choice not to use my software".
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Re: Re:
"For this wordle ripoff guy to succeed, the original wordle app must be significantly worse"
You would know this if you were capable of taking in information that relates to the real world, but - there was no "original" Wordle app. It's a website, not an app. Which is why the ripoff artist got in trouble - he was making money defrauding people into thinking the app he was selling was related to the original.
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And if it spreads to new users automatically."
Which it doesn't. Nothing happens without deliberate activity on the behalf of the user trying to share. Which would only make sense as complaint if...
"The keyword is "automatically". I.e. without active participation of the original developers."
Fuck, so you are saying that people talking about your product should be illegal.
I do love the progression here. You've gone from stating that it's unfair that people get paid for success, to claiming that it should be illegal to let your audience talk about you. What next - lock everyone up because they demand a product that actually runs?
On the post: Another 'Wordle' App Mixup Occurs, Only This Time Recipient Of Undue Rewards Builds Good Will
Re:
Funnily enough, I've never shared my scores on social media. Part of that is because my first couple of games were embarrassingly poor, and partly because I don't necessarily play every day. I'll banter a bit with friends if I spot someone who did worse (or better) than I did, but I don't view it as anything but a distraction for a few moments in the same way others would view the daily crossword or such things (which is why the NYT have bought it).
But, according to this guy what I did isn't possible. Yet another example of a failure so complete, he can't deal with the same universe the rest of us occupy.
Next >>