Even if broadband investment had decreased at all, it would have only been the ISPs "taking their ball and going home". They are 20 years behind in their investment anyway, and just pocket all the subsidies.
The only downside i see is people have to like/comment/share anything to prioritize getting it into their feeds. Or does this not apply to accounts one is following? (And if not, how was it in the feed in the first place?) It seems "see first" still functions, but ok whatever. Don't forget to like and subscribe. *barf*
Was only ever begrudgingly at FB for a short while, and they seem to change everything every few weeks anyway, so i am not sure my comment here has any validity anyway.
Re: Re: Re: If this didn't "undermine Section 230 immunity" it's because that isn't absolute as TD claims!
Except 230 doesn't protect, and hasn't protected anyone, including Backpage operators, from being prosecuted for crimes they actually or allegedly committed.
You still have no point here, and neither techdirt nor anyone else supporting the existence of Section 230 reversed on anything. Why would 230 protect those who run a site as a criminal enterprise? The answer is: It doesn't. But when your personal theory, which is yours, claims that we all just want to support criminals (because, you know, reasons), you have nothing else to make an argument with. All you can do is rinse and repeat.
Re: The movie "Idiocracy" was wildly optimistic that will take 500 years to undo civilization.
Civilization has always been barbarous. But i don't know how this relates to being able to register a mark with "fuck" or something in it. The marks mean nothing other than you can now avoid the company based on it expressing its true self, if you like, without fear of someone else copying their mark.
Wonder what they have to say about automobile addiction, working long hours for low pay addiction, addiction to reading books, addiction to proper medical services... idk, you name it.
Professor Twenge's research shows that U.S. teenagers who spend 3 hours a day or more on electronic devices are 35% more likely, and those who spend 5 hours or more are 71% more likely, to have a risk factor for suicide than those who spend less than 1 hour.
Honestly, what does this even mean, and who the hell is your control population? And is it considered that the correlation (never mind any claim of causation) is bass ackwards? Although i suppose exposure to people everywhere, leading to the realization that it isn't just your local population who may make you doubt humanity sometimes, could increase the likelihood that you develop a trait that someone considers a "risk factor for suicide". On the other hand, it could be a helpful realization. Sounds like a lot of shoehorning, cherry-picking, and unwarranted conclusions to me, though. (From all the citations, not just the pop-psych Twenge reference.)
Oh, and JANA. Who ruined CNET Networks and drove them into the arms of CBSi. Thanks guys.
On the other hand, good parental controls should have been a thing 15 years ago. Hell, applying any kinds of policies on your own devices and network should have been a thing. Control of, and access to the inner workings of your own device should be a thing. I just don't buy their story or "evidence". CSTRS, sure, I buy that they believe it.
The FBI would have us give up our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to gain a little security
Except it never provides even a little more security.
(In their universe, however, 10 people die every day for every phone they can't unlock or contents they can't decrypt. Still waiting for that claim...)
At what point do they thank tech companies for getting people to put so much personal information in one or two devices in the first place, and storing it in the warrant-accessible cloud, and transmitting over far more capturable media than whispering in the park or making phone calls from unforeseen locations?
I think the few phones they can't crack is hardly an issue. That they make it one belies their true intents, mainly the grab for more more power (encryption, then the next thing, then the next), and having something to harp on repeatedly to use as an excuse for their next failure to stop some sort of incident (whether it is something reasonably stop-able or not).
Funny i never see complaints about encrypted desktops and laptops.
True, but on the flip side of that, most traffic isn't unique. They only have to store content of interest once as a reference for anyone accessing it. (Including automatically displayed detritus like ads and decorations.) Sending text in one form or another is even smaller. Sure, individual audio/video communication is heavier, but that seems to be the most interesting to them in the first place. Not saying they do this, but avoiding storage of the same thing a million times is certainly possible, and reduces that 100 petabytes a month significantly. (Filtering spam and junk traffic, which makes up a significant portion of our PB/mo, would reduce storage even further.) Pretty sure the 100 PB figure also includes all the packet headers and other discardable overhead. You only need one copy of the endpoint IPs.
It's still an insane amount of data, but nowhere near 100 PB/mo for storage. Not that it makes the original claim a lot more realistic. Currently.
But the vacuum it all approach should have them in some deep copyright shit, technically, given the standard "bits were touched / duplicated" arguments made.
_Defendants 'have more power over free speech and privacy than any president, king, or Supreme Court justice,'" _
Well sure. No king, president, or judge ever gave you a novel medium and distribution method over which to communicate your thoughts, did they? Claiming they have more negative power over speech than any PTB is simply a hoot.
On the post: Shipyard Brewing Sues The Brewery It Is Trademark Bullying Over The Public Backlash To Its Trademark Bullying
On the post: Blackburn Doubles Down On A Decade Of Lies As She Pushes Fake Net Neutrality Law
On the post: Media Freaks Out About Facebook Changes; Maybe They Shouldn't Have Become So Reliant On Facebook
Was only ever begrudgingly at FB for a short while, and they seem to change everything every few weeks anyway, so i am not sure my comment here has any validity anyway.
On the post: Senate To Vote Tuesday On Surveillance Bill; Four Senators Try To Rally Others To Oppose
Re: Re: Re: Perversion in Politics (and no, this has nothing to do with sex)
On the post: Senator Portman Promises To Pass Bills To Harm Tech Companies If They Won't Support SESTA
Re: Re: If SESTA passes
On the post: Senator Portman Promises To Pass Bills To Harm Tech Companies If They Won't Support SESTA
Re: Re: I want to appologize to everyone...
On the post: Trump Doesn't Understand Surveillance Powers; House Votes To Give Him More Of It
Re: Re: Trump Thinks Live Tweeting Fox News is His Job
On the post: FTC Takes Down Another Revenge Porn Site
Re: Hey, maybe FTC is becoming active!
I'm surprised the FTC had enough funding to do it. Uh, activist government? Whatever. But the FTC is the Deep State. OK then.
On the post: FTC Takes Down Another Revenge Porn Site
Re:
On the post: FTC Takes Down Another Revenge Porn Site
Re: Re: Re: If this didn't "undermine Section 230 immunity" it's because that isn't absolute as TD claims!
You still have no point here, and neither techdirt nor anyone else supporting the existence of Section 230 reversed on anything. Why would 230 protect those who run a site as a criminal enterprise? The answer is: It doesn't. But when your personal theory, which is yours, claims that we all just want to support criminals (because, you know, reasons), you have nothing else to make an argument with. All you can do is rinse and repeat.
On the post: Appeals Court OKs F-Bombs For Federal Trademark Protection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Children
Fine ham abounds.
On the post: Appeals Court OKs F-Bombs For Federal Trademark Protection
Re: The movie "Idiocracy" was wildly optimistic that will take 500 years to undo civilization.
On the post: Shareholder Groups Say Apple Should Do More To Address Gadget 'Addiction' Among Young People: Should It?
Wonder what they have to say about automobile addiction, working long hours for low pay addiction, addiction to reading books, addiction to proper medical services... idk, you name it.
Professor Twenge's research shows that U.S. teenagers who spend 3 hours a day or more on electronic devices are 35% more likely, and those who spend 5 hours or more are 71% more likely, to have a risk factor for suicide than those who spend less than 1 hour.
Honestly, what does this even mean, and who the hell is your control population? And is it considered that the correlation (never mind any claim of causation) is bass ackwards? Although i suppose exposure to people everywhere, leading to the realization that it isn't just your local population who may make you doubt humanity sometimes, could increase the likelihood that you develop a trait that someone considers a "risk factor for suicide". On the other hand, it could be a helpful realization. Sounds like a lot of shoehorning, cherry-picking, and unwarranted conclusions to me, though. (From all the citations, not just the pop-psych Twenge reference.)
Oh, and JANA. Who ruined CNET Networks and drove them into the arms of CBSi. Thanks guys.
On the other hand, good parental controls should have been a thing 15 years ago. Hell, applying any kinds of policies on your own devices and network should have been a thing. Control of, and access to the inner workings of your own device should be a thing. I just don't buy their story or "evidence". CSTRS, sure, I buy that they believe it.
On the post: FBI Says Device Encryption Is 'Evil' And A Threat To Public Safety
Re:
The FBI would have us give up our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to gain a little security
Except it never provides even a little more security.
(In their universe, however, 10 people die every day for every phone they can't unlock or contents they can't decrypt. Still waiting for that claim...)
On the post: FBI Says Device Encryption Is 'Evil' And A Threat To Public Safety
I think the few phones they can't crack is hardly an issue. That they make it one belies their true intents, mainly the grab for more more power (encryption, then the next thing, then the next), and having something to harp on repeatedly to use as an excuse for their next failure to stop some sort of incident (whether it is something reasonably stop-able or not).
Funny i never see complaints about encrypted desktops and laptops.
On the post: FBI Says Device Encryption Is 'Evil' And A Threat To Public Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: With 'friends' like these...
On the post: Scammy Lawyer Award Company Sends C&D To Website For Pointing Out Its Scammy Behavior
emanate
This sounds hilariously Platonic here.
The "top 10%" designation means nothing,
Some people will know to turn and walk away from an office displaying these plaques or crystals.
On the post: Chinese Internet Users Start To Rebel Against Lack Of Online Privacy
Re: Re: We are right there with them
It's still an insane amount of data, but nowhere near 100 PB/mo for storage. Not that it makes the original claim a lot more realistic. Currently.
But the vacuum it all approach should have them in some deep copyright shit, technically, given the standard "bits were touched / duplicated" arguments made.
On the post: Dennis Prager Seeks Injunction To Keep YouTube From Administering Its Own Site While YouTube Seeks Dismissal
Well sure. No king, president, or judge ever gave you a novel medium and distribution method over which to communicate your thoughts, did they? Claiming they have more negative power over speech than any PTB is simply a hoot.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: December 31st - January 6th
Re:
Next >>