If I remember correctly, the idea was what since people cannot visit libraries during the pandemic, that there are thousands of copies currently unable to be lent, so this would be the replacement. I doubt that argument satisfies anyone though.
However this entire conversation seems to hang on the argument that each time a book is lent, that a sale is lost. That's a messed up way of thinking in my opinion.
The idea that BLM and other would be hampered without section 230 is what I expect the whole appeal of dismantling it is. Trump-era conservatives are totally fine with chilled speech, as long as it's speech they disagree with.
I'm not entirely sure but I think you are mostly agreeing with the article? The idea is to get police in cities to act like your town, part of the community instead of at war with it. And I agree with you that the training is a large part of the training, that's why the system need to be changed. Your town sounds great and I don't see how any proposed change would affect your police force.
I would like to comment on one part of your post:
The DEMOCRAT Identity politics game supports the police union blue gang as merely another they pander to and perhaps the Apex predator. Does the south side of Chicago - 30 deaths this weekend - think the police are needed?
Once again I'm not sure, but this sounds like you are under the misunderstanding that some are calling for police to be abolished completely. Literally no one is calling for that. Defunding the police is just a way to communicate the need to move funding away from the impossible goal of training one group of people to respond to every possible scenario in a city and into many well funded specialist groups to hand the many jobs police are unfairly forced to currently handle.
Maybe because it kills trust and creates other longer term issues? I mean, we've deliberately avoided using those business models here.
This sounds good in theory, but as we've seen with similar laws "needed" is very much open to interpretation.
This is precisely my point, there is mostly just moral reasons to avoid those business models. Clearly those reasons carry little weight for a lot of companies. Privacy laws would hopefully add some financial weight in the form of compliance costs to help balance the equation. There will always be companies who forego morality to pad their bottom line. If they have to consider how much and what kind of data to collect and manage then maybe it won't be worth sacrificing customer trust.
This assumes that the two services are identical. What if the one that collects data can actually provide a much better service?
I also assume the privacy laws are implemented well, which of course is a bit idealistic. To continue my example, the VC could go for either one based on a number of other variables I'm sure exist, but perhaps the service that does not have to worry about compliance could better compete on price, while the other could market itself as a premiere service. The finer details of VC decision making is well outside my expertise but I believe well implemented privacy laws could increase viable choices and be a net positive.
Because most small businesses are local. So they really only need to deal with one state's laws. It's only internet businesses that are automatically available basically everywhere.
Internet companies being automatically interstate is where I see room for improvement. I've seen websites that only ship in their own country, why should every new web based business be forced to be interstate? Limiting a customer base to one state may not have much advantage, but that's for some clever innovators to explore. Unless the federal privacy law prevents states from enacting their own laws on top of it, there's going to be interstate compliance issues to worry about anyway.
Privacy laws are going to get passed, too many companies have abused personal data. Whether these laws are state, federal, or international doesn't
change that they will impose a cost on companies, and costs applied to all companies will hurt small companies more. This is true for many protective legislature, like the ADA and OSHA laws. Sure these future privacy laws are going to negatively impact a ton of startups, but that's because the current ecosystem is based on companies abusing personal data. These laws (let's ignore their implementations for a moment) are intended to make those kinds of business models unattractive.
Companies didn't have this level of access to their customer's data before, but with modern technology has made it trivial to collect. Why wouldn't a company take advantage of this new revenue stream? It's free money after all. These privacy laws should push companies to use private data only when it's needed. Yes this will harm some startups, but it will also open the doors for other startups that don't need that data.
Imagine a VC is considering two companies, one that has a business model that will be collecting personal data while providing a service and another that provides a similar service without collecting personal data. In the current ecosystem it makes no sense to go with the second company which only produces one product, when the first company produces two. Change personal data collection to something that isn't a guaranteed revenue stream into something that could potentially be a huge expense and now the second company is a viable choice worth considering. It's this choice that allows more innovation to enter the market.
The article argues the need for a federal level law, rather than individual states, but I don't agree with that. Business have to deal with differing state laws in all sorts of arenas, why should privacy be any different? OSHA lays down a federal standard, but allows states to implement their own laws that exceed the federal rules. Perhaps this could be a natural way for smaller companies to compete with larger ones. While Google, Facebook, and Amazon are all having to deal with state, federal, and international rules, a Texan company might choose to just serve Texans, and use the money it's not spending on inter-state or international compliance to innovate.
Of course this all depends on the specific implementations, and we've seen how the GDPR's execution leaves much to be desired. I don't think this should be framed just as "privacy vs innovation", there will be innovation regardless of the ecosystem. Right now the deck is stacked for the business models that abuse private data, and that is what needs to change. We can't let innovation be guided only by the bottom line.
Why is it that whenever a big star tries to speak for all the little people, that they always seem to argue exactly the opposite from what those people are saying? It's like they are so gullible that they just take the talking-points from their record label and run with them.
All the PV article does is quote those points in the above comment, no sources and frankly no comments about them. It's basically no substance - and that's before I take into account that PV is a laughable source based on its reputation.
That being said, these quotes are hardly damning. Reading through them they seem extremely familiar - from self-defense seminars. Almost every single self-defense talk I've witnessed has pointed out that the kidneys and eyes are weak spots that should be targeted, most also include the groin. The first quoted point even says that the goal is to give the defender time to escape. Sure it also mentions it can be used to deliver more pain to the attacker, but AntiFa is not a peaceful ideology. Utilizing anger or fear to fight back is common in these seminars as well - emotions can affect physical performance, adrenaline makes you stronger and faster when needed.
Are these points more aggressive than most self-defense seminars? Sure, we all know AntiFa isn't a friendly book club. But it's not some smoking gun that you seem to think it is.
The reason you are getting push back to your statement is more to with how others have used similar rhetoric to dismiss the BLM movement. We keep hearing things like "not all cops" and "a few bad apples" as a means to argue against any change.
If there were police officers speaking out against the problems in their own departments that would be one thing, but if they are all going to stand together, then of course they are going to be painted with the same brush. It's not that they don't matter - it's that they don't make a difference. It's the system that is killing people, and so it's the system that is being painted. If the bad apples had been pruned decades ago, we wouldn't be having this current outcry, and good cops wouldn't be dealing with the danger they now have to. Blame the bad cops, the bad chiefs, and the bad unions who support them for the situation that good cops are currently in. The protests are merely a symptom of the rot that no one in power has felt like dealing all this time.
You should contribute to BLM or suffer the consequences.
Ignoring the tone of your comment for a moment, I find this bit to be quite telling. You find it repulsive to have to decide between keeping the status quo where black people are killed regularly by the police or changing it so our police are held to a high standard of conduct.
Aren't Americans always the ones who are supposed to take the principled higher ground? Whose heroes must always take the harder path because it is the right thing to do? Sure it's easy to just ignore the problem, but it's the American spirit to make sacrifices for a better tomorrow.
I don't even see what the purpose of putting the government into the middle of all this, they are just going to outsource these to the same companies anyway. And we've seen from pretty much every government agency that any meaningful oversight is impossible. They are all either underfunded, lack punishment authority, or both.
Whether they are allowed to do something is different from whether they should. It is very easy to acknowledge something is legal while criticizing it for being immoral.
A large publicly traded company takes an action to clean up it's image just for the PR?
Fetch me That One Guy's fainting couch!
Seriously though it's still a good idea to criticize moves like these, because theater or not there's a chance some good can come of this if done well.
This is what happens when a social media company is forced to moderate at scale. An automated process is put in that is prone to errors. It's especially bad on the copyright side of things because of how the laws have been written to benefit the large corps that own copyrights.
After a bit of research, it seems to all revolve around Fair Use. Unfortunately that means its legal but expensive to defend, what a wonderful system we have.
I've always been under the impression that film/tv productions needed licenses to carry private companies logos, what with so many water bottles and t-shirts with branding removed or replaced with fictional brands. Is there a difference here?
These so-called conservatives aren't against censorship, they are for it. They are calling for Twitter to be prevented from adding it's 1st Amendment protected speech to content on its own private property. This is disgusting.
On the post: Libraries Have Never Needed Permission To Lend Books, And The Move To Change That Is A Big Problem
Re: Copies
If I remember correctly, the idea was what since people cannot visit libraries during the pandemic, that there are thousands of copies currently unable to be lent, so this would be the replacement. I doubt that argument satisfies anyone though.
However this entire conversation seems to hang on the argument that each time a book is lent, that a sale is lost. That's a messed up way of thinking in my opinion.
On the post: Ron Wyden Explains Why President Trump (And Many Others) Are Totally Wrong About Section 230
The idea that BLM and other would be hampered without section 230 is what I expect the whole appeal of dismantling it is. Trump-era conservatives are totally fine with chilled speech, as long as it's speech they disagree with.
On the post: Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?
Re: The Millenial attention span.
How many black corpses is a Target worth?
Stop pretending this is some isolated incident, this happens all the time and has been going on for decades.
On the post: John Oliver Says What Needs To Be Said About Why Defunding The Police Is The Right Thing Right Now
Re: To quote Oliver earlier, "Do It!"!
I'm not entirely sure but I think you are mostly agreeing with the article? The idea is to get police in cities to act like your town, part of the community instead of at war with it. And I agree with you that the training is a large part of the training, that's why the system need to be changed. Your town sounds great and I don't see how any proposed change would affect your police force.
I would like to comment on one part of your post:
Once again I'm not sure, but this sounds like you are under the misunderstanding that some are calling for police to be abolished completely. Literally no one is calling for that. Defunding the police is just a way to communicate the need to move funding away from the impossible goal of training one group of people to respond to every possible scenario in a city and into many well funded specialist groups to hand the many jobs police are unfairly forced to currently handle.
On the post: Protecting Privacy While Promoting Innovation And Competition
Re: Re: Lack of Innovation
This is precisely my point, there is mostly just moral reasons to avoid those business models. Clearly those reasons carry little weight for a lot of companies. Privacy laws would hopefully add some financial weight in the form of compliance costs to help balance the equation. There will always be companies who forego morality to pad their bottom line. If they have to consider how much and what kind of data to collect and manage then maybe it won't be worth sacrificing customer trust.
I also assume the privacy laws are implemented well, which of course is a bit idealistic. To continue my example, the VC could go for either one based on a number of other variables I'm sure exist, but perhaps the service that does not have to worry about compliance could better compete on price, while the other could market itself as a premiere service. The finer details of VC decision making is well outside my expertise but I believe well implemented privacy laws could increase viable choices and be a net positive.
Internet companies being automatically interstate is where I see room for improvement. I've seen websites that only ship in their own country, why should every new web based business be forced to be interstate? Limiting a customer base to one state may not have much advantage, but that's for some clever innovators to explore. Unless the federal privacy law prevents states from enacting their own laws on top of it, there's going to be interstate compliance issues to worry about anyway.
On the post: Protecting Privacy While Promoting Innovation And Competition
Lack of Innovation
Privacy laws are going to get passed, too many companies have abused personal data. Whether these laws are state, federal, or international doesn't
change that they will impose a cost on companies, and costs applied to all companies will hurt small companies more. This is true for many protective legislature, like the ADA and OSHA laws. Sure these future privacy laws are going to negatively impact a ton of startups, but that's because the current ecosystem is based on companies abusing personal data. These laws (let's ignore their implementations for a moment) are intended to make those kinds of business models unattractive.
Companies didn't have this level of access to their customer's data before, but with modern technology has made it trivial to collect. Why wouldn't a company take advantage of this new revenue stream? It's free money after all. These privacy laws should push companies to use private data only when it's needed. Yes this will harm some startups, but it will also open the doors for other startups that don't need that data.
Imagine a VC is considering two companies, one that has a business model that will be collecting personal data while providing a service and another that provides a similar service without collecting personal data. In the current ecosystem it makes no sense to go with the second company which only produces one product, when the first company produces two. Change personal data collection to something that isn't a guaranteed revenue stream into something that could potentially be a huge expense and now the second company is a viable choice worth considering. It's this choice that allows more innovation to enter the market.
The article argues the need for a federal level law, rather than individual states, but I don't agree with that. Business have to deal with differing state laws in all sorts of arenas, why should privacy be any different? OSHA lays down a federal standard, but allows states to implement their own laws that exceed the federal rules. Perhaps this could be a natural way for smaller companies to compete with larger ones. While Google, Facebook, and Amazon are all having to deal with state, federal, and international rules, a Texan company might choose to just serve Texans, and use the money it's not spending on inter-state or international compliance to innovate.
Of course this all depends on the specific implementations, and we've seen how the GDPR's execution leaves much to be desired. I don't think this should be framed just as "privacy vs innovation", there will be innovation regardless of the ecosystem. Right now the deck is stacked for the business models that abuse private data, and that is what needs to change. We can't let innovation be guided only by the bottom line.
On the post: Don Henley Tells Senators: We Must Change Copyright Law... Because The People Like TikTok?
Gramophones indeed.
Why is it that whenever a big star tries to speak for all the little people, that they always seem to argue exactly the opposite from what those people are saying? It's like they are so gullible that they just take the talking-points from their record label and run with them.
On the post: #NoRightsMatter: US Postal Service, Law Enforcement Team Up To Seize 'Black Lives Matter' Facemasks
Re: Re: Re:
All the PV article does is quote those points in the above comment, no sources and frankly no comments about them. It's basically no substance - and that's before I take into account that PV is a laughable source based on its reputation.
That being said, these quotes are hardly damning. Reading through them they seem extremely familiar - from self-defense seminars. Almost every single self-defense talk I've witnessed has pointed out that the kidneys and eyes are weak spots that should be targeted, most also include the groin. The first quoted point even says that the goal is to give the defender time to escape. Sure it also mentions it can be used to deliver more pain to the attacker, but AntiFa is not a peaceful ideology. Utilizing anger or fear to fight back is common in these seminars as well - emotions can affect physical performance, adrenaline makes you stronger and faster when needed.
Are these points more aggressive than most self-defense seminars? Sure, we all know AntiFa isn't a friendly book club. But it's not some smoking gun that you seem to think it is.
On the post: #NoRightsMatter: US Postal Service, Law Enforcement Team Up To Seize 'Black Lives Matter' Facemasks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Game Ever More Lost
The reason you are getting push back to your statement is more to with how others have used similar rhetoric to dismiss the BLM movement. We keep hearing things like "not all cops" and "a few bad apples" as a means to argue against any change.
If there were police officers speaking out against the problems in their own departments that would be one thing, but if they are all going to stand together, then of course they are going to be painted with the same brush. It's not that they don't matter - it's that they don't make a difference. It's the system that is killing people, and so it's the system that is being painted. If the bad apples had been pruned decades ago, we wouldn't be having this current outcry, and good cops wouldn't be dealing with the danger they now have to. Blame the bad cops, the bad chiefs, and the bad unions who support them for the situation that good cops are currently in. The protests are merely a symptom of the rot that no one in power has felt like dealing all this time.
On the post: #NoRightsMatter: US Postal Service, Law Enforcement Team Up To Seize 'Black Lives Matter' Facemasks
Re: Re:
Ignoring the tone of your comment for a moment, I find this bit to be quite telling. You find it repulsive to have to decide between keeping the status quo where black people are killed regularly by the police or changing it so our police are held to a high standard of conduct.
Aren't Americans always the ones who are supposed to take the principled higher ground? Whose heroes must always take the harder path because it is the right thing to do? Sure it's easy to just ignore the problem, but it's the American spirit to make sacrifices for a better tomorrow.
On the post: Coronavirus Surveillance Is Far Too Important, And Far Too Dangerous, To Be Left Up To The Private Sector
Private vs Public Contracts
I don't even see what the purpose of putting the government into the middle of all this, they are just going to outsource these to the same companies anyway. And we've seen from pretty much every government agency that any meaningful oversight is impossible. They are all either underfunded, lack punishment authority, or both.
On the post: Facebook's Oversight Board Can't Intervene, So Stop Asking
Re:
Whether they are allowed to do something is different from whether they should. It is very easy to acknowledge something is legal while criticizing it for being immoral.
On the post: Facebook's Oversight Board Can't Intervene, So Stop Asking
Re:
How does one boycott an advertiser?
On the post: Facebook's Oversight Board Can't Intervene, So Stop Asking
Re: Checkbook "apologies"
A large publicly traded company takes an action to clean up it's image just for the PR?
Fetch me That One Guy's fainting couch!
Seriously though it's still a good idea to criticize moves like these, because theater or not there's a chance some good can come of this if done well.
On the post: Just As The Copyright Office Tries To Ignore The Problem Of Bad Takedowns, NBC & Disney Take Down NASA's Public Domain Space Launch
Re: What about trade deals
So far no courts have been willing to hand down DMCA 512(f) rewards, so there will continue to be no oversight.
On the post: Just As The Copyright Office Tries To Ignore The Problem Of Bad Takedowns, NBC & Disney Take Down NASA's Public Domain Space Launch
Re: Automated Garbage
This is what happens when a social media company is forced to moderate at scale. An automated process is put in that is prone to errors. It's especially bad on the copyright side of things because of how the laws have been written to benefit the large corps that own copyrights.
On the post: Private Prison Company Sues Netflix Over Use Of Logo In 'Messiah'
Re: Private Logos on TV
After a bit of research, it seems to all revolve around Fair Use. Unfortunately that means its legal but expensive to defend, what a wonderful system we have.
On the post: Private Prison Company Sues Netflix Over Use Of Logo In 'Messiah'
Private Logos on TV
I've always been under the impression that film/tv productions needed licenses to carry private companies logos, what with so many water bottles and t-shirts with branding removed or replaced with fictional brands. Is there a difference here?
On the post: Italian Public Prosecutor Says Project Gutenberg's Collection Of Public Domain Books Must Be Blocked For Copyright Infringement
Re:
Applying thought and effort would create a derivative work of their marching orders, and they don't have the license to do that.
On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias
These so-called conservatives aren't against censorship, they are for it. They are calling for Twitter to be prevented from adding it's 1st Amendment protected speech to content on its own private property. This is disgusting.
Next >>