Yahoo is definitely not gone, though it is irrelevant for the most part. Well, Excite is actually still around as well, although it's even less relevant and doesn't resemble what it used to be after Ask Jeeves acquired it.
"But it dont seem as they are doing much of anything to compete with the Big guys."
You do realise you're commenting on an article pointing out that the big boys are doing what they can to kill smaller competitors, right?
The first question I ask of any system like this is how they deal with obvious false positives. If they can't deal with those quickly and easily, then they can't deal with less obvious false positives and edge cases, which makes them essentially useless with a wide scope for punishing innocent people. Which is not acceptable, no matter how much some people demand they are necessary. At some point, individual freedom outweighs the imagined profit to be gained by using the law instead of business logic to deal with a situation.
"The company also says ID.me put its facial-recognition software through two separate tests for racial bias in 2021 and found no evidence of discrimination."
They should share more information, since that seems to make them very unique in the industry.
"Not everyone is as lucky as I am to have a choice of who will provide your internet."
Yes, this being the major issue people complain about. I don't hear these arguments in my local market, where there's a wide range of choice of different ISPs, different delivery methods, etc. They mainly come up when talking about markets where there's zero to little choice and people who would ditch their ISP in an instant don't have that option, or at least where the available options are not really options for what they need.
"There's only one way to curb this crap, and you can bet, just like cable, rate hikes and contracts are coming."
Contract terms would be a very bad idea and would likely kill off audiences of the service that applies them first, so I doubt they're coming. In the meantime, you've already described the flexibility that's the main benefit of these services compared to traditional cable.
Because the $15/month Game Pass option already has that included?
"Nor does it take into consideration these subscription prices are going to go up at some point"
...and if you have a problem with that price rise, you can opt to reject the rental of hundreds of games that you can't buy for close to the annual cost of Game Pass even if you stick to a couple of AAA games per year?
"Why pay $60 once + $15/mo when you can pay $25/mo for years."
Because the price includes hundreds of additional games you wouldn't get at the lower price - if you choose that option instead of sticking with the one you prefer?
Even if you see the new generation of consoles as nothing more than specialised PCs, there's plenty of benefits for that specialisation even if you believe you can replicate some of those with a general purpose device.
I don't own a gaming rig, have zero interest in getting one for the handful of games that I can't play on a console or my Mac/Linux setup, and I'm happy to upgrade every 5 years or so for a new console that separates my gaming from my work and other leisure activities.
Each to their own, but I'm very happy to use consoles as my gaming venue for a large number of reasons. If you don't agree, that's fine as personal subjective taste is a major factor, just don't lie to me about the benefits of the option I prefer.
"I haven’t seen an article saying it was cancelled. That’s too bad. Yet another loss of choice."
If you have a buffet of gourmet food, but someone decided to offer rat turds fried with cockroaches and a cat piss jus, that item being removed from the menu is technically a lowering of choice. But, most people are fine with it, and might even be more willing to return to the restaurant after it's removed from the menu.
"I don’t see anywhere where the author of this article told me to be upset"
Nor do I see where they told you to be upset about OANN, apart from the knee jerk "they're part of the Trump cult so I must defend" reaction you had.
"Personally it doesn’t have anything to do with me. I’ve never had access to OAN on broadcast."
Then the question is why you're trying to defend them, given that their viewing figures were known to be pretty low and as such there could have been many non-political reasons to can them and AWE.
"Generally I know very little of their content other than what liberal writers say and how they’re defended by conservative responses."
Which is rich coming from you. You jumped straight to "MSNBC is a propaganda network", even though I can't personally remember the last time they were mentioned by anyone who wasn't a right-wing shill trying desperately to give a "whatabout" in response to someone criticising Fox/OANN/Newsmax/whatever.
Even by your own standard, you're as bad as the people you criticise while pretending to be better than them, and even then it doesn't occur to you that most people watch MSNBC and CNN as often as you claim to watch OANN.
"Although I support the right to be heard as long as it doesn’t come at the expense of others."
Then, you support DirectTV's actions to protect their business from any losses that might come from a contract with a supplier who may have difficulty continuing to provide value to their platform and/or might not be able to pay their bills during that time?
"You mistake me for someone else. I didn’t say anything about government control."
Then, what is the problem? A private business has exercised their choice not to continue doing business with a supplier. That's their right, and nobody can stop them unless either the government or the market steps in to stop them or punish them for it. The market seems OK with this, so what is your suggested alternative?
"Nay, all I said was another voice has been silenced."
Except, they haven't. I can still hear them, and the people who repeat their messages.
"My opinion, or even knowledge, of a voice doesn’t change my support for all voices to speak and be heard."
OANN haven't lost that ability. They've merely lost the ability to use DirectTV's property to reach a certain audience. There's plenty of other options available to them, and nowhere is an audience guaranteed in any right you might imagine you or they have.
"David, when you have learned the difference between "discrimination" and "censorship", then please return here and elucidate that difference for us"
Even that's not directly relevant. It's perfectly moral and legal to discriminate and/or "censor" someone if that is in response to their own individual actions and the person taking action is not part of the government. The target may not like it, but then quite often the people sharing that platform (as customers or as investors) may not like it if the rogue element is allowed to continue unhindered.
No, it's an example of someone who missed the point and decided to jump straight to something that's expressly illegal as if it's even remotely similar.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The article you're commenting on is literally about a decision made by DirectTV. What did you think you were talking about?
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you don't have a problem with things that are happening, just the way people talk about them?
On the post: Yet Another Telecom-Backed Think Tank Insists U.S. Broadband Is Great, Actually
Re: Points of interest.
"Yahoo, excite and many others are gone."
Yahoo is definitely not gone, though it is irrelevant for the most part. Well, Excite is actually still around as well, although it's even less relevant and doesn't resemble what it used to be after Ask Jeeves acquired it.
"But it dont seem as they are doing much of anything to compete with the Big guys."
You do realise you're commenting on an article pointing out that the big boys are doing what they can to kill smaller competitors, right?
On the post: The Internet Wins: Adblocking (And Other Extensions) Don't Violate Copyright Law In Germany
Re:
"They hit a grandma who got no computer!"
The first question I ask of any system like this is how they deal with obvious false positives. If they can't deal with those quickly and easily, then they can't deal with less obvious false positives and edge cases, which makes them essentially useless with a wide scope for punishing innocent people. Which is not acceptable, no matter how much some people demand they are necessary. At some point, individual freedom outweighs the imagined profit to be gained by using the law instead of business logic to deal with a situation.
On the post: Biometric Tech Company ID.Me Continues To Swallow Gov't Agencies, Cause Problems For People Trying To Access Their Gov't Benefits
"The company also says ID.me put its facial-recognition software through two separate tests for racial bias in 2021 and found no evidence of discrimination."
They should share more information, since that seems to make them very unique in the industry.
On the post: Yet Another Telecom-Backed Think Tank Insists U.S. Broadband Is Great, Actually
Re:
"Not everyone is as lucky as I am to have a choice of who will provide your internet."
Yes, this being the major issue people complain about. I don't hear these arguments in my local market, where there's a wide range of choice of different ISPs, different delivery methods, etc. They mainly come up when talking about markets where there's zero to little choice and people who would ditch their ISP in an instant don't have that option, or at least where the available options are not really options for what they need.
On the post: The Internet Wins: Adblocking (And Other Extensions) Don't Violate Copyright Law In Germany
Re: 3rd party vs 1st
"Some sites require you to watch adverts to view their site"
Yes, they're usually the ones that inspire people to use the back button, instead of the "allow malware" button.
On the post: Netflix Hits Users With Another Round Of Price Hikes
Re:
"There's only one way to curb this crap, and you can bet, just like cable, rate hikes and contracts are coming."
Contract terms would be a very bad idea and would likely kill off audiences of the service that applies them first, so I doubt they're coming. In the meantime, you've already described the flexibility that's the main benefit of these services compared to traditional cable.
On the post: Are We Entering A Period In The Video Game Industry Of Hyper-Consolidation?
Re:
"None of this includes the $15/mo for XBox Live."
Because the $15/month Game Pass option already has that included?
"Nor does it take into consideration these subscription prices are going to go up at some point"
...and if you have a problem with that price rise, you can opt to reject the rental of hundreds of games that you can't buy for close to the annual cost of Game Pass even if you stick to a couple of AAA games per year?
"Why pay $60 once + $15/mo when you can pay $25/mo for years."
Because the price includes hundreds of additional games you wouldn't get at the lower price - if you choose that option instead of sticking with the one you prefer?
On the post: Are We Entering A Period In The Video Game Industry Of Hyper-Consolidation?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if you see the new generation of consoles as nothing more than specialised PCs, there's plenty of benefits for that specialisation even if you believe you can replicate some of those with a general purpose device.
On the post: Are We Entering A Period In The Video Game Industry Of Hyper-Consolidation?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't own a gaming rig, have zero interest in getting one for the handful of games that I can't play on a console or my Mac/Linux setup, and I'm happy to upgrade every 5 years or so for a new console that separates my gaming from my work and other leisure activities.
Each to their own, but I'm very happy to use consoles as my gaming venue for a large number of reasons. If you don't agree, that's fine as personal subjective taste is a major factor, just don't lie to me about the benefits of the option I prefer.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, which makes it strange that the ideas you support always seem to be the ones that allow them to do that with less effort.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I haven’t seen an article saying it was cancelled. That’s too bad. Yet another loss of choice."
If you have a buffet of gourmet food, but someone decided to offer rat turds fried with cockroaches and a cat piss jus, that item being removed from the menu is technically a lowering of choice. But, most people are fine with it, and might even be more willing to return to the restaurant after it's removed from the menu.
"I don’t see anywhere where the author of this article told me to be upset"
Nor do I see where they told you to be upset about OANN, apart from the knee jerk "they're part of the Trump cult so I must defend" reaction you had.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Personally it doesn’t have anything to do with me. I’ve never had access to OAN on broadcast."
Then the question is why you're trying to defend them, given that their viewing figures were known to be pretty low and as such there could have been many non-political reasons to can them and AWE.
"Generally I know very little of their content other than what liberal writers say and how they’re defended by conservative responses."
Which is rich coming from you. You jumped straight to "MSNBC is a propaganda network", even though I can't personally remember the last time they were mentioned by anyone who wasn't a right-wing shill trying desperately to give a "whatabout" in response to someone criticising Fox/OANN/Newsmax/whatever.
Even by your own standard, you're as bad as the people you criticise while pretending to be better than them, and even then it doesn't occur to you that most people watch MSNBC and CNN as often as you claim to watch OANN.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re:
"Although I support the right to be heard as long as it doesn’t come at the expense of others."
Then, you support DirectTV's actions to protect their business from any losses that might come from a contract with a supplier who may have difficulty continuing to provide value to their platform and/or might not be able to pay their bills during that time?
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Forget not the slope!
"You mistake me for someone else. I didn’t say anything about government control."
Then, what is the problem? A private business has exercised their choice not to continue doing business with a supplier. That's their right, and nobody can stop them unless either the government or the market steps in to stop them or punish them for it. The market seems OK with this, so what is your suggested alternative?
"Nay, all I said was another voice has been silenced."
Except, they haven't. I can still hear them, and the people who repeat their messages.
"My opinion, or even knowledge, of a voice doesn’t change my support for all voices to speak and be heard."
OANN haven't lost that ability. They've merely lost the ability to use DirectTV's property to reach a certain audience. There's plenty of other options available to them, and nowhere is an audience guaranteed in any right you might imagine you or they have.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thoughts on OANN
"David, when you have learned the difference between "discrimination" and "censorship", then please return here and elucidate that difference for us"
Even that's not directly relevant. It's perfectly moral and legal to discriminate and/or "censor" someone if that is in response to their own individual actions and the person taking action is not part of the government. The target may not like it, but then quite often the people sharing that platform (as customers or as investors) may not like it if the rogue element is allowed to continue unhindered.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thoughts on OANN
"Could you please read what the person you are defending with a vengeance actually wrote?"
More to the point, can you?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thoughts on OANN
No, it's an example of someone who missed the point and decided to jump straight to something that's expressly illegal as if it's even remotely similar.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
OK, I'll add the caveat of "where the potential business party is not being excluded because they are part of a protected class".
Happy? Or, do we need to keep explaining why the only person who erected a strawman was you, and it's a very poor construction at that?
Next >>