Re: Re: Re: Great piece; here are a few observations
Something to consider when offering such a platform is _don't build an attractive nuisance_. And the platform shouldn't engage in spammy nuisance behavior itself. Frequently, that seems to be in conflict with max monetization, which is why IPOs are the arrows pointing to the next step down the drain.
They all encourage the poor behavior or garbage content which they now seem to want to filter, or have been ordered to do so. They have done it through their own example. And yeah, most could have avoided a fair chunk of this by listening to people who have been dealing with digital fora since even before the damn internet. Although i have this idea that some of the people involved with creating such platforms were the trolls of older platforms.
Re: You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater if that's A FALSE REPORT.
Interesting, considering fake news is not supported here. However, there are plenty of liars who shout "fake news!" at facts, which is a problem when accusations elicit a visit from police or arrest with no recourse.
You will also be happy to know, then, that almost anyone brought before a court on criminal charges is convicted. Even the saiban-in reform experiment is highly controversial from what i have seen.
The thing with a municipal or regional broadband is that customers can vote with more than their wallets and voice complaints more effectively in multiple venues when it comes to bad service.
A Brady violation doesn't really underplay anything. The fact that some people don't understand the weight of the term "parallel construction" doesn't make it an incorrect term. It is hardly an understatement.
I don't see anything wrong with "evidence laundering", it seems perfectly descriptive and fit to convey meaning and avoid repetition. I do, however, see a problem with the trend of juicing up terminology to bypass any logical consumption and reach straight for negative emotional reactions. (I'm not saying your descriptive term is in this category.) It gives the opposition ammunition to mock arguments employing such terms, sometimes with some reason, even if their general position is sheer bullshit.
I'm a fan of colorful and variegated communication used to better convey meaning. But it is senseless to discard original terms rather than use additional description, such as "evidence laundering", to describe them.
I don't suppose my thinking is particular to your comment, but it did elicit a train of thought that brought me here. It put me in mind of changing terms to manipulate people or fire up the like-minded, which sometimes works terrible magic, or loses any meaningful connection with the original intent, among other outcomes.
Again, i think your statements are accurate. Perhaps something there simply reminds me of other, unconnected things.
So yeah, here's the deal: Ima gonna sell ya my rights to this work, only i reserve the right to sue anyone who infringes on your copyright. Cool?
I wouldn't believe in the validity of such a transaction even if it weren't made up post facto at the last minute.
And really what is the plan with some of these infringement suits, generally? They can never recover anything like what it costs to go to court, let alone damage claims if they win. Is there some kind of tax write-off for this that they can also game? As some kind of example, it surely does not burn fear into the hearts of toddlers and old dead men.
Seems to me that you need to read for comprehension rather than thinking that, every time you see two certain things mentioned together, you have some sort of clever gotcha.
That's true, but what about those who don't intend to be more or less full time youtube producers? It's more work to monetize other ways, and in some people might feel awkward (but not that many, apparently) with Patreon begging for slow or irregular work. I'm sure some just want a little help that adds up over time from ad monetization.
I don't know, i went back to blocking ads anyway, they are so repetitive and stupid. Youtube may end up feeling kind of silly, but it seems like people and corporations frequently do something even worse when they feel that way.
4000 hours watch time means that smaller channels are encouraged to output quantity content over quality content.
That's already old hat, so it's not like lame tubers wouldn't ramp it up. It also forces non-famous tubers into content-dumping stuff they normally wouldn't, or begging for more views. I think there is a broad middle where people can make interesting content, but not at a high rate, and not with a ton of regular viewers. So yeah.
You really can't compare US for-profit schools and colleges (e.g., many are or became such egregious scams that they shut down)to systems other places. If you want to go by names, one may think MIT was some sort of scam tech trade high school.
I would agree with TheCarl that this is the wrong thing to pick on, for a quick laugh or with serious accusation, without evidence. I wonder if these clowns-at-law will be smart enough to rebut that (assuming they wouldn't avoid the point for other shady reasons, including that the quality of his schooling and success as a student can be wholly irrelevant to the quality of this software or his "expert testimony").
On the post: FBI Director Chris Wray Says Secure Encryption Backdoors Are Possible; Sen. Ron Wyden Asks Him To Produce Receipts
Re: So you're saying the whole public / private key thing is wrong.
Wuh? Bomba nu explody? Modern warfare is a lie!
On the post: Censorship By Weaponizing Free Speech: Rethinking How The Marketplace Of Ideas Works
Re: Re: Re: Great piece; here are a few observations
They all encourage the poor behavior or garbage content which they now seem to want to filter, or have been ordered to do so. They have done it through their own example. And yeah, most could have avoided a fair chunk of this by listening to people who have been dealing with digital fora since even before the damn internet. Although i have this idea that some of the people involved with creating such platforms were the trolls of older platforms.
On the post: Italian Government Criminalizes 'Fake News,' Provides Direct Reporting Line To State Police Force
Re: You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater if that's A FALSE REPORT.
On the post: Psychiatrist Bitterly Drops Defamation Lawsuit Against Redditors
Re:
On the post: New Bill Would Prevent Comcast-Loyal States From Blocking Broadband Competition
Re:
On the post: China's Solution To The VPN Quandary: Only Authorized, And Presumably Backdoored, Crypto Links Allowed
On the post: Report Shows US Law Enforcement Routinely Engages In Parallel Construction
Re: Quite the unholy guilty party
On the post: Report Shows US Law Enforcement Routinely Engages In Parallel Construction
Re: Wrong terminology
I don't see anything wrong with "evidence laundering", it seems perfectly descriptive and fit to convey meaning and avoid repetition. I do, however, see a problem with the trend of juicing up terminology to bypass any logical consumption and reach straight for negative emotional reactions. (I'm not saying your descriptive term is in this category.) It gives the opposition ammunition to mock arguments employing such terms, sometimes with some reason, even if their general position is sheer bullshit.
I'm a fan of colorful and variegated communication used to better convey meaning. But it is senseless to discard original terms rather than use additional description, such as "evidence laundering", to describe them.
I don't suppose my thinking is particular to your comment, but it did elicit a train of thought that brought me here. It put me in mind of changing terms to manipulate people or fire up the like-minded, which sometimes works terrible magic, or loses any meaningful connection with the original intent, among other outcomes.
Again, i think your statements are accurate. Perhaps something there simply reminds me of other, unconnected things.
On the post: Apple's Incoherent App Approval Process Strikes Again, Net Neutrality App Banned For No Real Reason
Re: Another typical Techdirt piece: OVER before the next is out!
On the post: Now Another Judge Smacks Around A Guardaley Shell Company Acting As A Copyright Troll
I wouldn't believe in the validity of such a transaction even if it weren't made up post facto at the last minute.
And really what is the plan with some of these infringement suits, generally? They can never recover anything like what it costs to go to court, let alone damage claims if they win. Is there some kind of tax write-off for this that they can also game? As some kind of example, it surely does not burn fear into the hearts of toddlers and old dead men.
On the post: Southwest's Bullshit Lawsuit Over A Site That Made $45 Helping People Book Cheaper Flights
Re: "Southwest doesn't share its shares", eh?
On the post: The Constant Pressure For YouTube To Police 'Bad' Content Means That It's Becoming A Gatekeeper
Re: In modern Amerika... Youtube watches YOU! -- Or: Cesspools have gates, both in and out! -- Or: "Free" means "rigid controls"!
On the post: The Constant Pressure For YouTube To Police 'Bad' Content Means That It's Becoming A Gatekeeper
Re:
People need to dispense with the idea that all other people are wholly ignorant of facts.
On the post: The Constant Pressure For YouTube To Police 'Bad' Content Means That It's Becoming A Gatekeeper
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Constant Pressure For YouTube To Police 'Bad' Content Means That It's Becoming A Gatekeeper
Re: Re:
I don't know, i went back to blocking ads anyway, they are so repetitive and stupid. Youtube may end up feeling kind of silly, but it seems like people and corporations frequently do something even worse when they feel that way.
On the post: The Constant Pressure For YouTube To Police 'Bad' Content Means That It's Becoming A Gatekeeper
Re:
4000 hours watch time means that smaller channels are encouraged to output quantity content over quality content.
That's already old hat, so it's not like lame tubers wouldn't ramp it up. It also forces non-famous tubers into content-dumping stuff they normally wouldn't, or begging for more views. I think there is a broad middle where people can make interesting content, but not at a high rate, and not with a ton of regular viewers. So yeah.
On the post: After The 'Octopus Incident' White House Threatened To Stop 'Menacing Logos' From Spy Satellites
You could just do government out in the open then, it's cheaper.
On the post: Kodak's Supposed Cryptocurrency Entrance Appears To Be Little More Than A Rebranded Paparazzi Copyright Trolling Scheme... With The Blockchain
On the post: Copyright Troll Gets Smacked Around By Court, As Judge Wonders If Some Of Its Experts Even Exist
Re: Re: "technical high school"
I would agree with TheCarl that this is the wrong thing to pick on, for a quick laugh or with serious accusation, without evidence. I wonder if these clowns-at-law will be smart enough to rebut that (assuming they wouldn't avoid the point for other shady reasons, including that the quality of his schooling and success as a student can be wholly irrelevant to the quality of this software or his "expert testimony").
On the post: After Basically No Debate, And No Opportunity For Amendments, Senate Votes To Expand NSA Surveillance
Re: Re:
Next >>