So if I choose to have a monthly wage of $10 and I click on 3 Techdirt articles, techdirt itself and mike once each, 4 articles in torrent freak and, let's say, ernesto (TF writer) then Techdirt as a whole will receive $5 (if Mike has a separate account he gets $1, if the writers of TD have separate accounts they may receive the flattr for their articles) and TorrentFreak will get $5 (same as TD).
Yes, I got this the first time I read about Flattr. However, it appears that if someone you select doesn't have a Flattr account, that money doesn't go to them. We are still saying the same thing, but are interpreting it differently. The payer attempts to give the money to someone, but if Flattr doesn't have a contact for the person being selected, that person doesn't get the money.
Spoiler: The flight search makes presumptions based on your platform and browser as to what prices it should present you. Mac users pay more, for instance.
That's going to be increasingly the case as companies compile more data on us. Each of us will get a different price based on previous buying patterns. The upside is that if you only buy when something is on sale, perhaps that's all you'll ever see. They'll know the proper price point to send you to encourage you to buy.
Government ends up taking over when private operations fail to protect the public. Here are some examples:
Commons Has Expanded, Not Shrunk, Over Past 200 Years | On the Commons: "If you had asked the person next to you in New York or virtually any other city for a drink of water in 1825, they would have had a predictable response: go buy your own. ... Water, safe and dependable water, was a private responsibility. ... It was only after a cholera epidemic and a fire that political will expanded to create one of the nation’s first public water system."
Think Those Chemicals Have Been Tested? - NYTimes.com: "Pharmaceutical companies used to be able to sell drugs with minimal prior testing, but that changed after a drug called Thalidomide, given in the 1950s to pregnant women for morning sickness, was found to cause severe birth defects the public outcry helped push the medical field to take a precautionary approach to introducing new drugs."
You're right about private companies being a huge part of the problem. The government we vote for uses private companies heavily, specifically because private companies aren't restricted by things like the Constitution.
Yes, I think the push for privatizing everything gives lots of cover to those collecting and using data. If citizens protest the government, just have those functions done by private companies that want to do away with any restrictions/regulations on their actions anyway. We replace a semi-regulated system (government) with a totally unregulated system (private enterprise).
Doing so is not related to legitimate national security, but they can't get people on board by saying what it's really related to: domestic social control.
I have no problem with people being wary of "domestic social control." But I always go a step further to point out that I think companies collecting data are facilitating this, directly or indirectly. If that data is being collected, if that data is being sold, and if people don't clearly know what data is being collected about them and how it is being used, then the entire system is inter-related. Trying to cite government as the sole bad guy strikes me as a cover for the lack of systematic privacy.
Flattr does not collect money for anyone. Your understanding is completely flawed. They allow people to set up a monthly pool of money that is distributed evenly among everything that this person flattred (similar to clicking Like or +1 except that this generates income to the receiving end of the +1).
When they decided to integrate with Twitter there was a problem: sometimes people flattred tweets and accounts that did not use Flattr. So instead of keeping the money to themselves Flattr SAVED that money so these people could claim that.
But you are saying what I said. The money goes to Flattr in the name of someone. If that someone doesn't know about it, the money is "saved" for them. But Flattr gets the money until it is claimed, right?
I'll add that I think the Silicon Valley world view tends to be too insular, based on many articles I have read written by people in the middle of the Silicon Valley echo chamber. There isn't nearly as much diversity of thinking and diversity of culture as there could be if all the pieces were more spread out throughout the world.
I read whatever comes out about online security and it is difficult to make sense of it. While Techdirt likes to single out the government, there are lots of accounts of online hacks written by people who have been victims, by companies offering protection services, and by hackers claiming credit.
There isn't really a totally unbiased discussion of actual threat levels.
What I do believe is that there is so much intertwining between government and private contractors that I don't think the government does anything that isn't backed by private enterprise at some level. So if you want to make sense of that connection, follow the money. US government isn't really distinct from private enterprise. It is, these days, often a manifestation of private enterprise and special interests.
What happens with Stanford isn't a personal concern of mine. But I am interested in power/wealth concentration in the world. The more influence comes from a small group to the exclusion of others, the less the world economic system is democratized and decentralized. There are endless articles about how no place in the world generates entrepreneurs and funds startups like Silicon Valley. Some people point to this as a good thing because it shows how powerful a network can become. To them it's the model of how things should be. But if you want other parts of the world to also have opportunities, maybe you want to replace this model as soon as possible.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You state the problem at 2nd word: BIG.
We have a financial system that rewards big and growth. Whether that is achieved through patents or through other means, as long as we hand over financial rewards based on those measures and as long as we allow well-funded companies and individuals to buy politicians, I don't think the system will change even if patents are eliminated. The companies that have power now will likely strive to create and strengthen a political and economic system that favors them.
If you eliminate patents but keep everything else in place, you may end up with very big companies built to take advantage of no patents. So the power shifts to companies that don't use patents, but use other forms of law and control to maintain power. I think you need to look at the entire political and economic situation in the world rather than just a small part of it, particularly when eliminating that small part may be done in order to strengthen already big companies.
Financial companies, gun manufacturers, energy companies, chemical companies -- these are big industries that don't depend on patents these days to maintain control, but they do influence laws and regulations or lack of them.
I am concerned about this, too. As wealth/power becomes more concentrated, political/economic structures are reinforced to maintain the wealth/power of those who already have it.
One reason I haven't been won over by libertarians is my fear that the emphasis on property rights will help maintain the power of those who already have property rather than giving access to it to those without it.
Given the way Silicon Valley has embraced the financial system (e.g., IPOs; corporate growth as a way to boost stock prices; an insiders club of VCs) I don't see many of the entrepreneurs there taking steps to create systems that will begin to dismantle the ways they accumulate wealth. I would feel more impressed with the copyright/patent discussions if the goal was to find ways to eliminate the need/value of big multinationals, including the big tech companies.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
Buy Signal: Facebook Widens Data Targeting - WSJ.com: "On Wednesday, Facebook officially plans to roll out a new advertiser tool to help advertisers directly target Facebook users based on their offline spending history.
"The tool marries what Facebook already knows about people's friends and 'likes' with vast troves of information from third-party data marketers ... That includes data on the Web pages that consumers visit, the email lists they have signed up for, and the way they are spending money online and offline."
Whenever I say that it's private enterprise that's actually doing the surveillance, it's based on what companies proudly say they are doing or can do. Here's another example. This is a quote from Jan Jonk, CEO and Interaction Designer at Dreams of Danu.
Why Is Angry Birds Addictive? Helsinki Pitches to Be a ‘Neurogaming’ Hotspot - Tech Europe - WSJ: “Connect Google glasses to a headset and you have a whole different beast. Imagine walking around a city with that on and seeing an overlay of how everyone around you is behaving in their minds. Are they relaxed, or stressed? And you could actually see that. Instead of seeing someone’s Facebook status, you could see information about what people’s minds are doing. There’s a lot you could do with that data.”
I don't know enough about cybersecurity to yet know what is happening. But based on what I have read, I don't think the government is acting independently on this issue. I believe private enterprise is calling the shots in one way or another: either to gain government contracts and/or to get the government to set up protections for private enterprise.
This is the part of the article that stands out for me. It hasn't been established which is more true.
Cyberattacks Abound Yet Companies Tell SEC Losses Are Few - Bloomberg: "Those mixed messages have triggered a debate over whether Washington is overstating the damage from cyber attacks or whether companies are understating its impact -- or not disclosing the attacks at all. It also raises questions about whether some companies are painting more alarming scenarios for politicians than for their investors."
People are bought and sold by private companies. The info is available. The private/government distinction isn't that big a deal as long as the info is collected and provided for a price. And consumers don't know when they sign up for something how that info will be used or who will have access to it.
Google sold Frommer’s Travel — but kept all the social media data — paidContent: "In other words, Google is keeping all of the followers that Frommer’s accrued on Twitter, Facebook, FourSquare, Google , YouTube and Pinterest. These thousands — or more likely millions — of accounts are valuable because they represent a huge collection of serious travel enthusiasts."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
The problem with taxes is not that the system is complicated. It is that people are stolen from: taxed. The problem is taxes.
If you eliminate taxes, you eliminate much of government. Like I said, eliminate all government contracts, government jobs, and government transfer payments and see what the economy does. I can live with the result because I'd like to see global consumption go down to make for a more sustainable planet, but a lot of other people can't live with the immediate results.
On the post: Unfortunate: Twitter Forces Flattr To Stop Its Twitter Integration
Re: Re: Re: Re: Collecting without approval
Yes, I got this the first time I read about Flattr. However, it appears that if someone you select doesn't have a Flattr account, that money doesn't go to them. We are still saying the same thing, but are interpreting it differently. The payer attempts to give the money to someone, but if Flattr doesn't have a contact for the person being selected, that person doesn't get the money.
On the post: Authors Guild Shuts Itself Off From Public Criticism, As People Realize It Represents Publishers, Not Authors
Re: Re: OT
Who would be fighting whom? You think the NRA folks and the Occupy Wall Street folks are going to unite to fight a common enemy?
On the post: Flight Search Engines And The Multi-City Ripoff
Re:
That's going to be increasingly the case as companies compile more data on us. Each of us will get a different price based on previous buying patterns. The upside is that if you only buy when something is on sale, perhaps that's all you'll ever see. They'll know the proper price point to send you to encourage you to buy.
On the post: The Greatest Trick The Government Ever Pulled Was Convincing The Public The 'Hacker Threat' Exists
Re: Does the public need government?
Commons Has Expanded, Not Shrunk, Over Past 200 Years | On the Commons: "If you had asked the person next to you in New York or virtually any other city for a drink of water in 1825, they would have had a predictable response: go buy your own. ... Water, safe and dependable water, was a private responsibility. ... It was only after a cholera epidemic and a fire that political will expanded to create one of the nation’s first public water system."
Think Those Chemicals Have Been Tested? - NYTimes.com: "Pharmaceutical companies used to be able to sell drugs with minimal prior testing, but that changed after a drug called Thalidomide, given in the 1950s to pregnant women for morning sickness, was found to cause severe birth defects the public outcry helped push the medical field to take a precautionary approach to introducing new drugs."
On the post: The Greatest Trick The Government Ever Pulled Was Convincing The Public The 'Hacker Threat' Exists
Re: Re:
You'd have to take on a lot of American history, starting with the founding of the country, if you want to argue for that one.
People organize. There's always some form of government. Even at the micro level there are families and tribes, which are forms of government.
On the post: The Greatest Trick The Government Ever Pulled Was Convincing The Public The 'Hacker Threat' Exists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorting out security info
Yes, I think the push for privatizing everything gives lots of cover to those collecting and using data. If citizens protest the government, just have those functions done by private companies that want to do away with any restrictions/regulations on their actions anyway. We replace a semi-regulated system (government) with a totally unregulated system (private enterprise).
On the post: The Greatest Trick The Government Ever Pulled Was Convincing The Public The 'Hacker Threat' Exists
Re: Re: Sorting out security info
I have no problem with people being wary of "domestic social control." But I always go a step further to point out that I think companies collecting data are facilitating this, directly or indirectly. If that data is being collected, if that data is being sold, and if people don't clearly know what data is being collected about them and how it is being used, then the entire system is inter-related. Trying to cite government as the sole bad guy strikes me as a cover for the lack of systematic privacy.
On the post: Unfortunate: Twitter Forces Flattr To Stop Its Twitter Integration
Re: Re: Collecting without approval
When they decided to integrate with Twitter there was a problem: sometimes people flattred tweets and accounts that did not use Flattr. So instead of keeping the money to themselves Flattr SAVED that money so these people could claim that.
But you are saying what I said. The money goes to Flattr in the name of someone. If that someone doesn't know about it, the money is "saved" for them. But Flattr gets the money until it is claimed, right?
On the post: Because Some Students At Stanford Go To Startups, That Somehow Means Stanford Is No Longer A University?
Re: Centralized power
On the post: The Greatest Trick The Government Ever Pulled Was Convincing The Public The 'Hacker Threat' Exists
Sorting out security info
There isn't really a totally unbiased discussion of actual threat levels.
What I do believe is that there is so much intertwining between government and private contractors that I don't think the government does anything that isn't backed by private enterprise at some level. So if you want to make sense of that connection, follow the money. US government isn't really distinct from private enterprise. It is, these days, often a manifestation of private enterprise and special interests.
On the post: Unfortunate: Twitter Forces Flattr To Stop Its Twitter Integration
Collecting without approval
Therefore, I am not sure Twitter does have an obligation to allow a company to say it is representing people it isn't actually representing.
On the post: Because Some Students At Stanford Go To Startups, That Somehow Means Stanford Is No Longer A University?
Centralized power
On the post: How Big Agribusiness Is Heading Off The Threat From Seed Generics -- And Failing To Keep The Patent Bargain
Re: Re: Re: Re: You state the problem at 2nd word: BIG.
If you eliminate patents but keep everything else in place, you may end up with very big companies built to take advantage of no patents. So the power shifts to companies that don't use patents, but use other forms of law and control to maintain power. I think you need to look at the entire political and economic situation in the world rather than just a small part of it, particularly when eliminating that small part may be done in order to strengthen already big companies.
Financial companies, gun manufacturers, energy companies, chemical companies -- these are big industries that don't depend on patents these days to maintain control, but they do influence laws and regulations or lack of them.
On the post: How Big Agribusiness Is Heading Off The Threat From Seed Generics -- And Failing To Keep The Patent Bargain
Re: You state the problem at 2nd word: BIG.
I am concerned about this, too. As wealth/power becomes more concentrated, political/economic structures are reinforced to maintain the wealth/power of those who already have it.
One reason I haven't been won over by libertarians is my fear that the emphasis on property rights will help maintain the power of those who already have property rather than giving access to it to those without it.
Given the way Silicon Valley has embraced the financial system (e.g., IPOs; corporate growth as a way to boost stock prices; an insiders club of VCs) I don't see many of the entrepreneurs there taking steps to create systems that will begin to dismantle the ways they accumulate wealth. I would feel more impressed with the copyright/patent discussions if the goal was to find ways to eliminate the need/value of big multinationals, including the big tech companies.
On the post: How Big Agribusiness Is Heading Off The Threat From Seed Generics -- And Failing To Keep The Patent Bargain
Re: Re: You state the problem at 2nd word: BIG.
Are you suggesting that Google has grown so big because of patents?
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not verifiable, but Mike swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
"The tool marries what Facebook already knows about people's friends and 'likes' with vast troves of information from third-party data marketers ... That includes data on the Web pages that consumers visit, the email lists they have signed up for, and the way they are spending money online and offline."
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
This is how private companies see the future
Why Is Angry Birds Addictive? Helsinki Pitches to Be a ‘Neurogaming’ Hotspot - Tech Europe - WSJ: “Connect Google glasses to a headset and you have a whole different beast. Imagine walking around a city with that on and seeing an overlay of how everyone around you is behaving in their minds. Are they relaxed, or stressed? And you could actually see that. Instead of seeing someone’s Facebook status, you could see information about what people’s minds are doing. There’s a lot you could do with that data.”
On the post: As Congress Debates CISPA, Companies Admit No Real Damage From Cyberattacks
The relevant part for me
This is the part of the article that stands out for me. It hasn't been established which is more true.
Cyberattacks Abound Yet Companies Tell SEC Losses Are Few - Bloomberg: "Those mixed messages have triggered a debate over whether Washington is overstating the damage from cyber attacks or whether companies are understating its impact -- or not disclosing the attacks at all. It also raises questions about whether some companies are painting more alarming scenarios for politicians than for their investors."
On the post: Document Accidentally Filed Publicly Reveals Google Fighting Back Against Government Snooping
How the game is played
Google sold Frommer’s Travel — but kept all the social media data — paidContent: "In other words, Google is keeping all of the followers that Frommer’s accrued on Twitter, Facebook, FourSquare, Google , YouTube and Pinterest. These thousands — or more likely millions — of accounts are valuable because they represent a huge collection of serious travel enthusiasts."
On the post: Intuit Continues To Make Sure Filing Taxes Is Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slimy, but tax simplification is not good
If you eliminate taxes, you eliminate much of government. Like I said, eliminate all government contracts, government jobs, and government transfer payments and see what the economy does. I can live with the result because I'd like to see global consumption go down to make for a more sustainable planet, but a lot of other people can't live with the immediate results.
Next >>