You are correct. However, as they try to offer wireless as a replacement for wireline, if the product is not similar then people will rebel against it.
If exisitng ISPs get away from offering wireline service, they open the market up for new players to come in and do it.
It's win win, no matter how much you don't like it!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
"Were that the case then unless I am completely misreading you the only people who would be able to post content would be those with the knowledge of how to write code. Want to write something up for your personal blog and/or post a picture? Better know all the HTML/markdown coding to get the page looking like you want it to. Don't know how? Tough, no page for you."
Strawman.
Anyone (and I do mean anyone) can open their own website. Products such as Wordpress make it really easy to operate your own blog, "wordpress hosting" means you can be up and running in minutes, and you need to know very little or no HTML or other coding to do so. Wordpress is a 5 minute install.
"That a platform like youtube chooses which font to use and the page layout does not mean they are choosing anything meaningful as far as content goes. "
The point is that Youtube offers more than just hosting - and it's not particularly optional either. To post a video, you need to have an account. Your video will always appears Youtube branded (in their player) and will always have links to youtube as a result. Your video page will never be the video alone, there will always be other things added by youtube, from advertising and "recommended videos" to discussion about your video, friends lists, etc.
You control none of it. Youtube does. You get only to submit the video. You don't get to control it after that, except to remove it. Youtube decides when and where it appears, how it is promoted on their site, and so on.
In fact, when it comes to look and feel, operations, and public interaction, you are nothing more than a content provider for their publishing network. They control everything past the point of creation.
"Yes, how terrible that they aren't doing what is both not legally obligated of them or even remotely feasible. That's not a 'problem', it's what allows them to function in any meaningful way."
Legally, they do have certain obligations (kiddy porn is the usual boogie man). They have certain things they cannot have on their site, no matter how "innocent host" they want to be.
As for "remotely feasible" all I can say is that is very much and exactly what I consider a "business model" problem. If being legal and within the law isn't "remotely feasible" then you have a problem with your whole business setup.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
Actually, no.
"Regardless of whether or not YouTube's business model is "provide a platform for other people to post content", it still has the same obligations to society as did any pre-Internet middleman. "
Does Youtube only provide hosting for videos, or do they aggregate them, publish them on pages, insert ads, track favorites, make recommendations, and offer things like accounts, favorite lists, and the like? Hosting alone would be "here is the video", Youtube offers up much more.
"One of those obligations is to filter the content made available, so that particular (albeit not fixed) bad things are not made available."
I don't think that filtering for bad things is the point. Filtering for illegal things should be. They are already fast for kiddy porn or a stray nipple for that matter, so taking a bit more care isn't out of the reach of what they do. When it came time to filter out stuff that would hurt them making ad dollars, they were pretty quick about it, right?
"If it is impossible to fulfill these obligations under the chosen business model, that is the company's problem for having chosen this business model; it must either find a way to do that impossible thing, or shut down."
If my business model is selling Ice Cream cones for 50% less than they cost to produce, I have a bad business model. If I operate a website that cannot generate as much income as it costs to run, it seems pretty logical that it too has a bad business model.
In the end, it's pretty simple: If your business model only works because you don't care about what your are publishing on your website(s) then you have a problem. More so if it is the only way that it is even marginally close to making money. If actually having to give a crap about what you are publishing, promoting, aggregating, and re-distributing makes your business model fail, then perhaps it's better that way.
I would never thing you would get down to tired memes.
First up, the MEo price list is for a mobile service, not a DSL or fixed line.
Second, they appear to be offering a certain cap unlimited, and these are "over the top" access plans
Third, and this is important: This is not their only pricing offer for mobile. Taking a cruise around their whole site shows plenty of other options.
Equally important is that Portugal has 3 main national carriers, all running on the same GSM netowrks, all with number portability, etc. Network penetration is quite high, with more mobile numbers than there are people.
Their home internet services are all in, often fiber, and the pricing seems reasonable compared to others.
But hey, enjoy the meme, enjoy scaring people to death - but the market in the US doesn't really support this stuff, so it's unlikely that anyone would go that way -
This is the incredibly huge and strong upside to "everyone is a journalist" nonsense, which basically means that people like this can get their name sullied by accident and then have to live it over and over again. People get the story wrong, it gets repeated.
What is the expression, a lie goes around the world before the truth even gets it's pants on?
Worse for this guy of course if he got meme'd. At that point, all hope is lost.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
For the moment, no. DMCA created a rather large hole that pretty much everyone and their dog has driven through.
However, it's changing slowly. EU copyright reforms look like they are going to strip away at least some of the protections, they seem to have a better understand of the difference between a neutral hosting company and an online content aggregation publisher.
It's very likely that many of those methods might be illegal under the proposed European law. Things like ETAGs would not be allowed to be tracked, as it would be "inter-site" which is would no longer be valid.
My guess would be as new ways to track are found, they would be added to a list of unacceptable ways to track users. EU sites doing so would be in violation of at least the spirit of the law.
Pretty much everything Google has been involved in is designed to extend their reach, to drive people to their search and as a result on to other sites with Google ads on them. It also drives their market for selling paid listings.
Any time Google is doing something for free, the underlying premise is market position and ubiquity of their search and search products, which in turn feeds their ad market (which brings in billions).
It's not FUD. It's why they spend tons of money on an OS that brings them little direct return.
Well, it works better than nothing, that is for sure.
I am male. I don't see many (if any) ads for feminine hygiene products on Facebook, but my wife does. I do get plenty of ads for Tech gear, local restaurants, and other things that are more relevant to me.
Unless they close the loop on knowing that you have bought something, they will tend to send you more ads about things you are interested in. But over time, that tends to go away as you move on to other topics.
It would be better than showing you ads for Restaurants on the other side of the world, movies in languages you don't understand, and products that you cannot buy locally.
Considering that Techdirt often prattles on about unintended consequences and slippery slopes, one has to wonder if nobody really thought this story through.
Most of the sites you love (including this one) make some or all of their income from advertising. Targeted ads are what really pay the bills, the more they can show you that is relevant to where you have been or what you have searched for, the more likely you are to click the ad and thus, there is more value (and more pay!).
Google ads commands a big part of the market, in part because they have their fingers in the pie all the time, so to speak. They know where you go, what you search, and so on. For mobile users they add on the go location data, and boom, perfect ads - and lots of revenue.
On the other side of things, we know that the internet is a hard place to make money. When your income is often measures in tenths or hundreds of a cent per user visit or per page view, it's quite hard to find a point where you make a profit. Removing or limiting targeting in advertising would very likely kick the legs out from under the business model entirely, taking with it many of the sites you enjoy.
So who makes money? Well, the two biggest money makers (from running non-hard good businesses) are Google and Facebook - two companies who make their income through ad targeting. They are two companies who track you incessantly and turn that knowledge into cash.
Of course, the pat answer is to say "we don't need those garbage commercial sites clogging up our wonderful online commune", which sounds nice until you realize that the phone in your hand is at least partially paid via advertising. Apple holds you hostage to their app store and closed environment, and Android exists only really to further Google's grip on your data and you eyeballs. Take that away, and the point of making such things (and the money to do it) could evaporate overnight - or you could go back to paying for your OS and such, adding hundreds more dollars onto your phone price.
The EU deal sounds go from the surface, but the unintended consequences are big. Remember, Techdirt slams 55 cookies from at least a half a dozen sources at you every visit. The EU rules would seem to suggest that wouldn't be acceptable anymore. I would really love to hear Mike chime in as to what the would do for the business model here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
"No, they host content, "
This is where we disagree.
Hosting content would be that someone puts something up (a web page, an image file, whatever) and it is presented in the same format if you ask for the correct URL. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube - they don't really do that. They aggregate and publish content (like a newspaper) from different sources. They (and they alone) get to choose how it appears, if it appears, where it appears, and when it appears. Your Twitter feed allows you only to choose from who you want stories, and even then Twitter injects "suggested stories" or "sponsored tweets" into that. They decide everything from the font to the order, they mute writers they don't like, they promote others, they choose who is in your "in case you missed it" part of your page when you get there.
You have to consider that a post on facebook is no different from a "wire story" that a newspaper gets. The newspaper still decides what page it goes on, what font size it has, if they include the picture or not, and so on. Facebook has that same control over the posts you make. They choose when and where they appear, the order, the font, appearance, position... or for that matter if it is seen at all. Consider their most recent changes in regards to your "feed". A small change has dropped traffic to certain sites and pages off the roof. The users didn't decide that, Facebook did.
So I don't feel these sites are just hosts. They are publishers. They abdicate responsibility to check what they publish - and that's the problem.
Re: Re: Re: If they can't manage their platforms...
The problem for Twitter is actually pretty simple: they have a business model problem.
What is the problem? Well, quite simply, even with the most simple, most automated operation, they don't make money. Earlier this year, they were proud to announce they only lost 62 million in a quarter, which was a big improvement over their previous results.
So Twitter is facing the horrible problem of dealing with policing their site, while realizing that it costs them both expense and users.
Essential, as a wild west, the business is socially interesting but a bottom line failure. They have no desire to make it worse be banning people willy nilly and dropping posts.
Now on the other side, you have Instagram. It's a bit of a cesspool as well, but post up a picture with naked bits on it, and the image disappears pretty quick. Do it a couple of times, and your account disappears pretty quick too. They are taking care of business.
Most sites simply don't have the money to address the problem.
Re: Re: Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
You sort of lost the plot, you are too focused on the what "child pr0n is obvious!" and worried about that, rather than worrying about the concept.
Without a conviction, how do you really know it's CP, or illegal in any manner? If a site is willing to make that choice without waiting for a conviction, where does the line get drawn? It ends up being a discussion on a level that is meaningless in a legal context, because it becomes how you feel about something. Is the KKK posting hateful massages illegal, or just hateful? Does a site like Twitter remove it because they have a conviction in hand, or just because they don't want hateful messages on their site?
"A newspaper chooses what they publish, and can easily pre-vet the content they publish as the scope is dramatically smaller and they don't post content in near-real time, giving them time to do so."
A website has the same option. They choose to forego that option and instead publish everything as fast as they can. It's a choice. A newspaper could decide to just print everything they get verbatim without consideration. Would they be more or less liable?
Like it or not, "platform" owners do have control over what appears on their sites. Youtube as an example groups things together, allows comments, suggests related materials, helps to curate play lists and suggests more content - and then arranged it on pages with relevant advertising and such. Clearly, it's more like a newspaper (publication) and less like a printing press. They are your partners in content distribution.
"massive amounts of content and creativity and speech flourishing like never before with people having access to numerous platforms,"
In no small part because of an absence of liability.
"what exactly is being 'traded off' again? Some people who use the platforms available in bad or even illegal ways?"
Actually, what is being traded is responsibility. The internet "revolution" is in many ways no different from the hippies. They wanted a world where you could do your own thing and nobody bothered you. It doesn't work. Your actions, your words, and your attitudes affect others around you, like it or not. What you are suggesting is that "platforms" have no responsibility for what they profit from, but equally have no responsibility to know where the material comes from. It creates a liability gap which is untenable. What you traded away was decorum and respect. What you get instead is sort of an online version of street gangs. How nice is that?
Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
"If you have a problem with it then you should stop beating up the strawman of it. No-one is saying 'sites shouldn't do anything', the argument is that if they are legally obligated to 'do something' then the harm will vastly outweigh the gains, and when pressured to 'do something' the scope of the problem often means boneheaded 'collateral damage' occurs."
Actually, the argument that has been raised is that if they do anything, then they could be liable for everything, and thus will choose to do nothing. Argument most commonly used in reference to SESTA.
"It's not 'willful blindness' to not do what you aren't required to do, or even can do in any feasible fashion. If I told you that I wanted you to record and vet every conversation by everyone on your block in case someone uttered a phrase I found offensive it would not be 'willful blindness' on your part to refuse."
Your example doesn't work. Public conversations are not published by third parties - they are public and are can be controlled only by the person making them. Published on a website, there is an element of potential control that enters into things. The website can choose not to host the "speech", even if it's free.
"And the minute you can prove that someone is breaking the law you can go after them."
That would be way too high of a standard. The proof would require successful prosecution, and potentially all appeals completed before it would be entirely official. Since that process can often take years, are you willing to allow all illegal content (say Pedo stuff) stay online until a prosecution is completed? That answer clearly is no, so then after that, it's just a question of where in the murky sands you care to draw your personal line.
"Well it's a good thing online services are comparable to offline ones then, such that demanding that they 'respect the norms everyone else does' translates perfectly well. You know, like how laws regarding aviation translate perfectly to people walking on the sidewalk; they're both forms of transportation, so clearly the same laws and norms should apply."
Nice try, but analogy fail. We are talking speech versus speech here, not flying. In the real world, a magazine would not print pedo pictures. Yet, your view seems to be that until the person is prosecuted, publishing them online is fine. How weird is that? Why is the online world given a free pass that doesn't happen anywhere else?
"If a site like youtube was forced to vet content like a newspaper was it wouldn't exist. "
Actually, newspapers existed and continued to exist exactly because they did vet their content. The question of volume is one of business models. Are you willing to trade societal norms and responsibility for volume? That seems like a very poor trade.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the point of hiding the "My_Name_Here" comment, and WHO did it?
If you don't think that Techdirt "cares" about individual posters, then you missed a lot. Do you think the out of the blue types disappear willingly?
I'll let you think about it.
As for "censorship by flagging", It's one of those things. Are you saying that I shouldn't mention the elephant in the room, because it might suddenly shit on me? I am long since past caring about it in many ways. But it's important for people to understand what happens when you don't agree with the views expressed.
It's why flagging tools (like upvoting) tends to end up being self defeating. It ends up polishing the echo chamber and muting out opposing or unpopular views, rather than considering them - and making it harder for others to read them, see them, or consider them.
Most importantly, on a site that is about free speech, anything that limits the speech of anyone in any way is in direct opposition to the ideals of free speech. But that's okay, free speech apparently isn't for everyone! :)
You hit the nail on the head, but ignored the ringing sound it made and moved on to trying to shade the concept and not the operators.
Russia is the land of corruption. It was once said that if you operated a business in Moscow, your total legal tax bill would in some cases exceed 100% of your income. Almost everyone in Russia spends their lives trying to figure out how to get around the rules to make the most profit. If you are on "team Putin" it's apparently a lot easier.
That a couple of чино́вник types decided to stick their noses in the public trough for an extra couple of bites of dinner isn't really relevant to the work the do. It's just the way Russia works.
"The obvious question should be this: if a censorship agency like Rozcomnadzor is willing to put these kinds of corrupt practices in place up the chain to the higher levels of government, is there any doubt at all that it would behave equally or more corrupt down the chain to those under its responsibilities?"
Actually, the obvious question is, why do you think the two are directly related? They are corrupt for their own benefit, not for the benefit of others. Unless there is a really big payday in it for them, it's not particularly relevant.
I have a real problem with the all or nothing, black or white mentality in play here. If you can't do everything, clearly you assume you should do nothing. That's defeatist and ignorant.
Almost every platform does something. Even Techdirt filters out "spam" *cough*. Facebook deletes obviously fake accounts, Twitter bans certain accounts, Google deletes email boxes of spammers and scammers.
The world is rarely black and white.
The arrogant attitude of many internet services comes from the idea that to be "free speech" they also have to be willfully blind and ignorant to everything that happens in their place of business, their sites, their domain. Guys like Kim Dotcom have convinced you that total ignorance is a perfect legal defense, even if you have to wear blinders and purposely ignore everything that is going on.
It's arrogant, and it's morally bankrupt.
One of the reasons there is such a huge backlash against the Silicon Valley types is that there is a huge amount of arrogant attitudes, an absence of morals, and things that go against the common man. So called "Jerk Tech", also referred to as 1% apps, are set up by ignoring social norms, ignoring the law, and just going for it regardless. When questioned, they fall back on the old "just a service, not responsible" line that infuriates so many.
We all have a certainly level of self-responsibility. We all have a certain minimum standard in our lives. We would not allow drug dealers, fraudsters, Pedos, murders, and other criminals to operate out of our offices or our homes. Why should we suddenly forget about that because it's on your site, our app, our domain, or our service?
Nobody is after online sites to do more than the real world. They are pushing to get the online world to respect the norms everyone else does.
If they want to do something useful, they should build out the last mile to 100% of all addresses in the city.
Put enough fiber in each home, business, etc to allow for multiple services, and run that fiber back to termination points owned and maintained by the city.
The city can then rent (a) space in the termination points to any and all who wish to provide service(s), (b) rent the last mile on demand to those companies.
Go further and create cabling corridors (above or below ground) where companies who wish to connect to these termination points can do so without even having to handle a one touch ready - build it to support dozens on different companies and let them run their own fiber to the termination points as they need. Charge a maintenance fee to keep the corridor working and up to spec.
Boom, you now have everything you need to have every company in the world as an ISP.
Of course, they will never do it. It actually costs money and requires effort. Cities are great at talking the talk, but rarely even bother to slip on the shoes and try to walk.
Re: Re: What's the point of hiding the "My_Name_Here" comment, and WHO did it?
The point, of course, is that hiding a comment that is otherwise valid because you don't like the person or don't like the point raised is pretty much the direct opposite of free speech.
Moreover, if you were only hiding it for yourself (say, ignore all of my comments) it wouldn't matter. But a small number of votes perhaps weighted on the age of the account or if they are paying members can change what everyone else sees. Other people are making the choice for you. If you want to read my comments, you have to make additional effort to do so, not because you want to, but because someone else deemed my comments somehow offensive to their worldview.
That is never fair.
As a side note, Techdirt also has what the euphemistically call the spam filter. They can add IP addresses in there and then every comment you make is held for moderation. It also appears to flag by user, adding any IP that users end up on. That isn't flagging, that is literally stopping people from posting equally in public venues. Yes, they usually release the comments and publish them, but generally after the conversation has ebbed and flowed, to the point that the comment may either be not relevant or just unread.
I spent month behind that. It's incredibly frustrating to watch people who claim to be the bastions of free speech engaged in such a backhanded campaign to stop opinions they don't like.
Exactly. It's why I don't buy into the whole "sky is falling" theory. Even well written laws (like RICO) have been spun and convoluted to achieve results that were never the intention of the law. Yet, many obvious crimes appear not to be prosecuted.
EFF seems to be asserting that nobody enforce the law ever, and Techdirt seems to be saying "everyone is going to jail!". I have a hard time to believe either of them, their conclusions appear to be mostly self-serving.
On the post: Portugal Shows The Internet Why Net Neutrality Is Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh?
If exisitng ISPs get away from offering wireline service, they open the market up for new players to come in and do it.
It's win win, no matter how much you don't like it!
On the post: Forcing Internet Platforms To Police Content Will Never Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
Strawman.
Anyone (and I do mean anyone) can open their own website. Products such as Wordpress make it really easy to operate your own blog, "wordpress hosting" means you can be up and running in minutes, and you need to know very little or no HTML or other coding to do so. Wordpress is a 5 minute install.
"That a platform like youtube chooses which font to use and the page layout does not mean they are choosing anything meaningful as far as content goes. "
The point is that Youtube offers more than just hosting - and it's not particularly optional either. To post a video, you need to have an account. Your video will always appears Youtube branded (in their player) and will always have links to youtube as a result. Your video page will never be the video alone, there will always be other things added by youtube, from advertising and "recommended videos" to discussion about your video, friends lists, etc.
You control none of it. Youtube does. You get only to submit the video. You don't get to control it after that, except to remove it. Youtube decides when and where it appears, how it is promoted on their site, and so on.
In fact, when it comes to look and feel, operations, and public interaction, you are nothing more than a content provider for their publishing network. They control everything past the point of creation.
"Yes, how terrible that they aren't doing what is both not legally obligated of them or even remotely feasible. That's not a 'problem', it's what allows them to function in any meaningful way."
Legally, they do have certain obligations (kiddy porn is the usual boogie man). They have certain things they cannot have on their site, no matter how "innocent host" they want to be.
As for "remotely feasible" all I can say is that is very much and exactly what I consider a "business model" problem. If being legal and within the law isn't "remotely feasible" then you have a problem with your whole business setup.
It cuts both ways.
On the post: Forcing Internet Platforms To Police Content Will Never Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
"Regardless of whether or not YouTube's business model is "provide a platform for other people to post content", it still has the same obligations to society as did any pre-Internet middleman.
"
Does Youtube only provide hosting for videos, or do they aggregate them, publish them on pages, insert ads, track favorites, make recommendations, and offer things like accounts, favorite lists, and the like? Hosting alone would be "here is the video", Youtube offers up much more.
"One of those obligations is to filter the content made available, so that particular (albeit not fixed) bad things are not made available."
I don't think that filtering for bad things is the point. Filtering for illegal things should be. They are already fast for kiddy porn or a stray nipple for that matter, so taking a bit more care isn't out of the reach of what they do. When it came time to filter out stuff that would hurt them making ad dollars, they were pretty quick about it, right?
"If it is impossible to fulfill these obligations under the chosen business model, that is the company's problem for having chosen this business model; it must either find a way to do that impossible thing, or shut down."
If my business model is selling Ice Cream cones for 50% less than they cost to produce, I have a bad business model. If I operate a website that cannot generate as much income as it costs to run, it seems pretty logical that it too has a bad business model.
In the end, it's pretty simple: If your business model only works because you don't care about what your are publishing on your website(s) then you have a problem. More so if it is the only way that it is even marginally close to making money. If actually having to give a crap about what you are publishing, promoting, aggregating, and re-distributing makes your business model fail, then perhaps it's better that way.
On the post: Portugal Shows The Internet Why Net Neutrality Is Important
First up, the MEo price list is for a mobile service, not a DSL or fixed line.
Second, they appear to be offering a certain cap unlimited, and these are "over the top" access plans
Third, and this is important: This is not their only pricing offer for mobile. Taking a cruise around their whole site shows plenty of other options.
Equally important is that Portugal has 3 main national carriers, all running on the same GSM netowrks, all with number portability, etc. Network penetration is quite high, with more mobile numbers than there are people.
Their home internet services are all in, often fiber, and the pricing seems reasonable compared to others.
But hey, enjoy the meme, enjoy scaring people to death - but the market in the US doesn't really support this stuff, so it's unlikely that anyone would go that way -
On the post: Researcher Still Being Pursued By Russian Bank Over Last Year's Mistaken Trump Connection Story
What is the expression, a lie goes around the world before the truth even gets it's pants on?
Worse for this guy of course if he got meme'd. At that point, all hope is lost.
On the post: Forcing Internet Platforms To Police Content Will Never Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
However, it's changing slowly. EU copyright reforms look like they are going to strip away at least some of the protections, they seem to have a better understand of the difference between a neutral hosting company and an online content aggregation publisher.
Of course, maybe FT was making it up from whole cloth? https://www.ft.com/content/7dec4252-7a85-11e6-ae24-f193b105145e
On the post: European Parliament Agrees Text For Key ePrivacy Regulation; Online Advertising Industry Hates It
Re: Re: Breaking the internet
My guess would be as new ways to track are found, they would be added to a list of unacceptable ways to track users. EU sites doing so would be in violation of at least the spirit of the law.
On the post: European Parliament Agrees Text For Key ePrivacy Regulation; Online Advertising Industry Hates It
Re: Re: Unintended consequences
Any time Google is doing something for free, the underlying premise is market position and ubiquity of their search and search products, which in turn feeds their ad market (which brings in billions).
It's not FUD. It's why they spend tons of money on an OS that brings them little direct return.
On the post: European Parliament Agrees Text For Key ePrivacy Regulation; Online Advertising Industry Hates It
Re: Re: Unintended consequences
I am male. I don't see many (if any) ads for feminine hygiene products on Facebook, but my wife does. I do get plenty of ads for Tech gear, local restaurants, and other things that are more relevant to me.
Unless they close the loop on knowing that you have bought something, they will tend to send you more ads about things you are interested in. But over time, that tends to go away as you move on to other topics.
It would be better than showing you ads for Restaurants on the other side of the world, movies in languages you don't understand, and products that you cannot buy locally.
On the post: European Parliament Agrees Text For Key ePrivacy Regulation; Online Advertising Industry Hates It
Unintended consequences
Most of the sites you love (including this one) make some or all of their income from advertising. Targeted ads are what really pay the bills, the more they can show you that is relevant to where you have been or what you have searched for, the more likely you are to click the ad and thus, there is more value (and more pay!).
Google ads commands a big part of the market, in part because they have their fingers in the pie all the time, so to speak. They know where you go, what you search, and so on. For mobile users they add on the go location data, and boom, perfect ads - and lots of revenue.
On the other side of things, we know that the internet is a hard place to make money. When your income is often measures in tenths or hundreds of a cent per user visit or per page view, it's quite hard to find a point where you make a profit. Removing or limiting targeting in advertising would very likely kick the legs out from under the business model entirely, taking with it many of the sites you enjoy.
So who makes money? Well, the two biggest money makers (from running non-hard good businesses) are Google and Facebook - two companies who make their income through ad targeting. They are two companies who track you incessantly and turn that knowledge into cash.
Of course, the pat answer is to say "we don't need those garbage commercial sites clogging up our wonderful online commune", which sounds nice until you realize that the phone in your hand is at least partially paid via advertising. Apple holds you hostage to their app store and closed environment, and Android exists only really to further Google's grip on your data and you eyeballs. Take that away, and the point of making such things (and the money to do it) could evaporate overnight - or you could go back to paying for your OS and such, adding hundreds more dollars onto your phone price.
The EU deal sounds go from the surface, but the unintended consequences are big. Remember, Techdirt slams 55 cookies from at least a half a dozen sources at you every visit. The EU rules would seem to suggest that wouldn't be acceptable anymore. I would really love to hear Mike chime in as to what the would do for the business model here.
On the post: Forcing Internet Platforms To Police Content Will Never Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
This is where we disagree.
Hosting content would be that someone puts something up (a web page, an image file, whatever) and it is presented in the same format if you ask for the correct URL. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube - they don't really do that. They aggregate and publish content (like a newspaper) from different sources. They (and they alone) get to choose how it appears, if it appears, where it appears, and when it appears. Your Twitter feed allows you only to choose from who you want stories, and even then Twitter injects "suggested stories" or "sponsored tweets" into that. They decide everything from the font to the order, they mute writers they don't like, they promote others, they choose who is in your "in case you missed it" part of your page when you get there.
You have to consider that a post on facebook is no different from a "wire story" that a newspaper gets. The newspaper still decides what page it goes on, what font size it has, if they include the picture or not, and so on. Facebook has that same control over the posts you make. They choose when and where they appear, the order, the font, appearance, position... or for that matter if it is seen at all. Consider their most recent changes in regards to your "feed". A small change has dropped traffic to certain sites and pages off the roof. The users didn't decide that, Facebook did.
So I don't feel these sites are just hosts. They are publishers. They abdicate responsibility to check what they publish - and that's the problem.
On the post: Forcing Internet Platforms To Police Content Will Never Work
Re: Re: Re: If they can't manage their platforms...
What is the problem? Well, quite simply, even with the most simple, most automated operation, they don't make money. Earlier this year, they were proud to announce they only lost 62 million in a quarter, which was a big improvement over their previous results.
So Twitter is facing the horrible problem of dealing with policing their site, while realizing that it costs them both expense and users.
Essential, as a wild west, the business is socially interesting but a bottom line failure. They have no desire to make it worse be banning people willy nilly and dropping posts.
Now on the other side, you have Instagram. It's a bit of a cesspool as well, but post up a picture with naked bits on it, and the image disappears pretty quick. Do it a couple of times, and your account disappears pretty quick too. They are taking care of business.
Most sites simply don't have the money to address the problem.
On the post: Forcing Internet Platforms To Police Content Will Never Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
Without a conviction, how do you really know it's CP, or illegal in any manner? If a site is willing to make that choice without waiting for a conviction, where does the line get drawn? It ends up being a discussion on a level that is meaningless in a legal context, because it becomes how you feel about something. Is the KKK posting hateful massages illegal, or just hateful? Does a site like Twitter remove it because they have a conviction in hand, or just because they don't want hateful messages on their site?
"A newspaper chooses what they publish, and can easily pre-vet the content they publish as the scope is dramatically smaller and they don't post content in near-real time, giving them time to do so."
A website has the same option. They choose to forego that option and instead publish everything as fast as they can. It's a choice. A newspaper could decide to just print everything they get verbatim without consideration. Would they be more or less liable?
Like it or not, "platform" owners do have control over what appears on their sites. Youtube as an example groups things together, allows comments, suggests related materials, helps to curate play lists and suggests more content - and then arranged it on pages with relevant advertising and such. Clearly, it's more like a newspaper (publication) and less like a printing press. They are your partners in content distribution.
"massive amounts of content and creativity and speech flourishing like never before with people having access to numerous platforms,"
In no small part because of an absence of liability.
"what exactly is being 'traded off' again? Some people who use the platforms available in bad or even illegal ways?"
Actually, what is being traded is responsibility. The internet "revolution" is in many ways no different from the hippies. They wanted a world where you could do your own thing and nobody bothered you. It doesn't work. Your actions, your words, and your attitudes affect others around you, like it or not. What you are suggesting is that "platforms" have no responsibility for what they profit from, but equally have no responsibility to know where the material comes from. It creates a liability gap which is untenable. What you traded away was decorum and respect. What you get instead is sort of an online version of street gangs. How nice is that?
On the post: Forcing Internet Platforms To Police Content Will Never Work
Re: Re: black or white mentality (not racist either)
Actually, the argument that has been raised is that if they do anything, then they could be liable for everything, and thus will choose to do nothing. Argument most commonly used in reference to SESTA.
"It's not 'willful blindness' to not do what you aren't required to do, or even can do in any feasible fashion. If I told you that I wanted you to record and vet every conversation by everyone on your block in case someone uttered a phrase I found offensive it would not be 'willful blindness' on your part to refuse."
Your example doesn't work. Public conversations are not published by third parties - they are public and are can be controlled only by the person making them. Published on a website, there is an element of potential control that enters into things. The website can choose not to host the "speech", even if it's free.
"And the minute you can prove that someone is breaking the law you can go after them."
That would be way too high of a standard. The proof would require successful prosecution, and potentially all appeals completed before it would be entirely official. Since that process can often take years, are you willing to allow all illegal content (say Pedo stuff) stay online until a prosecution is completed? That answer clearly is no, so then after that, it's just a question of where in the murky sands you care to draw your personal line.
"Well it's a good thing online services are comparable to offline ones then, such that demanding that they 'respect the norms everyone else does' translates perfectly well. You know, like how laws regarding aviation translate perfectly to people walking on the sidewalk; they're both forms of transportation, so clearly the same laws and norms should apply."
Nice try, but analogy fail. We are talking speech versus speech here, not flying. In the real world, a magazine would not print pedo pictures. Yet, your view seems to be that until the person is prosecuted, publishing them online is fine. How weird is that? Why is the online world given a free pass that doesn't happen anywhere else?
"If a site like youtube was forced to vet content like a newspaper was it wouldn't exist. "
Actually, newspapers existed and continued to exist exactly because they did vet their content. The question of volume is one of business models. Are you willing to trade societal norms and responsibility for volume? That seems like a very poor trade.
On the post: Google, Facebook & Comcast Jointly Lied to California Lawmakers To Scuttle Broadband Privacy Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the point of hiding the "My_Name_Here" comment, and WHO did it?
I'll let you think about it.
As for "censorship by flagging", It's one of those things. Are you saying that I shouldn't mention the elephant in the room, because it might suddenly shit on me? I am long since past caring about it in many ways. But it's important for people to understand what happens when you don't agree with the views expressed.
It's why flagging tools (like upvoting) tends to end up being self defeating. It ends up polishing the echo chamber and muting out opposing or unpopular views, rather than considering them - and making it harder for others to read them, see them, or consider them.
Most importantly, on a site that is about free speech, anything that limits the speech of anyone in any way is in direct opposition to the ideals of free speech. But that's okay, free speech apparently isn't for everyone! :)
On the post: Russian Site-Blocking Operation Embroiled In Corruption Scandal
Russia is the land of corruption. It was once said that if you operated a business in Moscow, your total legal tax bill would in some cases exceed 100% of your income. Almost everyone in Russia spends their lives trying to figure out how to get around the rules to make the most profit. If you are on "team Putin" it's apparently a lot easier.
That a couple of чино́вник types decided to stick their noses in the public trough for an extra couple of bites of dinner isn't really relevant to the work the do. It's just the way Russia works.
"The obvious question should be this: if a censorship agency like Rozcomnadzor is willing to put these kinds of corrupt practices in place up the chain to the higher levels of government, is there any doubt at all that it would behave equally or more corrupt down the chain to those under its responsibilities?"
Actually, the obvious question is, why do you think the two are directly related? They are corrupt for their own benefit, not for the benefit of others. Unless there is a really big payday in it for them, it's not particularly relevant.
Good try, but wow, you are reaching!
On the post: Forcing Internet Platforms To Police Content Will Never Work
black or white mentality (not racist either)
Almost every platform does something. Even Techdirt filters out "spam" *cough*. Facebook deletes obviously fake accounts, Twitter bans certain accounts, Google deletes email boxes of spammers and scammers.
The world is rarely black and white.
The arrogant attitude of many internet services comes from the idea that to be "free speech" they also have to be willfully blind and ignorant to everything that happens in their place of business, their sites, their domain. Guys like Kim Dotcom have convinced you that total ignorance is a perfect legal defense, even if you have to wear blinders and purposely ignore everything that is going on.
It's arrogant, and it's morally bankrupt.
One of the reasons there is such a huge backlash against the Silicon Valley types is that there is a huge amount of arrogant attitudes, an absence of morals, and things that go against the common man. So called "Jerk Tech", also referred to as 1% apps, are set up by ignoring social norms, ignoring the law, and just going for it regardless. When questioned, they fall back on the old "just a service, not responsible" line that infuriates so many.
We all have a certainly level of self-responsibility. We all have a certain minimum standard in our lives. We would not allow drug dealers, fraudsters, Pedos, murders, and other criminals to operate out of our offices or our homes. Why should we suddenly forget about that because it's on your site, our app, our domain, or our service?
Nobody is after online sites to do more than the real world. They are pushing to get the online world to respect the norms everyone else does.
On the post: San Francisco, Seattle Tire of Comcast, Mull Building Citywide Fiber Networks
Put enough fiber in each home, business, etc to allow for multiple services, and run that fiber back to termination points owned and maintained by the city.
The city can then rent (a) space in the termination points to any and all who wish to provide service(s), (b) rent the last mile on demand to those companies.
Go further and create cabling corridors (above or below ground) where companies who wish to connect to these termination points can do so without even having to handle a one touch ready - build it to support dozens on different companies and let them run their own fiber to the termination points as they need. Charge a maintenance fee to keep the corridor working and up to spec.
Boom, you now have everything you need to have every company in the world as an ISP.
Of course, they will never do it. It actually costs money and requires effort. Cities are great at talking the talk, but rarely even bother to slip on the shoes and try to walk.
On the post: Google, Facebook & Comcast Jointly Lied to California Lawmakers To Scuttle Broadband Privacy Bill
Re: Re: What's the point of hiding the "My_Name_Here" comment, and WHO did it?
Moreover, if you were only hiding it for yourself (say, ignore all of my comments) it wouldn't matter. But a small number of votes perhaps weighted on the age of the account or if they are paying members can change what everyone else sees. Other people are making the choice for you. If you want to read my comments, you have to make additional effort to do so, not because you want to, but because someone else deemed my comments somehow offensive to their worldview.
That is never fair.
As a side note, Techdirt also has what the euphemistically call the spam filter. They can add IP addresses in there and then every comment you make is held for moderation. It also appears to flag by user, adding any IP that users end up on. That isn't flagging, that is literally stopping people from posting equally in public venues. Yes, they usually release the comments and publish them, but generally after the conversation has ebbed and flowed, to the point that the comment may either be not relevant or just unread.
I spent month behind that. It's incredibly frustrating to watch people who claim to be the bastions of free speech engaged in such a backhanded campaign to stop opinions they don't like.
On the post: Google, Facebook & Comcast Jointly Lied to California Lawmakers To Scuttle Broadband Privacy Bill
Re: Re: Re: Narrowly?
EFF seems to be asserting that nobody enforce the law ever, and Techdirt seems to be saying "everyone is going to jail!". I have a hard time to believe either of them, their conclusions appear to be mostly self-serving.
Next >>