"because Techdirt NEVER wants corporations to be held liable."...for crimes some other third party commits.
Similarly, YOU never want 'roads' to be held liable...for bank robberies where the criminal used the road.
The real problem here is that Facebook has deep pockets, where the actual criminal probably doesn't. In the US, accusations of guilt tend to follow the money, not the guilty.
"Users must select passwords that are no more than eight (8) characters long..."
If Jersey is not allowing passwords longer than 8 chars, I think we can all agree that this is stupid, not user friendly, and also less secure than longer passwords.
And, of course it's, AGAIN, the opposite of NIST recommendations.
From NIST 800-63B: "Verifiers SHOULD permit subscriber-chosen memorized secrets at least 64 characters in length."
Other publishers seem to work one of two ways: - race for scoops & offer hot takes - write long form stories, like mag articles, a la Atlantic
It seems that, with the others, the only way to get deep thought, analysis, or research is that it must be associated with a looooong article. I do love those articles, but just cannot read many of them because of time constraints.
Overall, I prefer the Techdirt approach, analysis and thought, but retaining some brevity.
A better metaphor is that the www is the "public square", and facebook, etc are big merchants with storefronts on the public square.
They are NOT the square itself, but ARE contiguous with that prime real estate.
As shops on a square lose business, they go away and get replaced by new ones, but the square remains. Similarly, MySpace and Friendster had prime addresses, but those are now Twitter or Facebook.
Still, today, anybody can take a soapbox and go speak/rant in the public square, like Times Square NYC. But one cannot go to Times Square with a soapbox, enter the ESPN Zone restaurant, and deliver a filibuster about how media is controlled by Jews and Disney is tool of globalists.
Just as Alex Jones can set up his own site on the virtual town square at www.inforwars.com -- but maybe not welcome inside Facebook.
Re: Re: I'm sort of irritated at all those anti-DNC trolls
I've read recently that it's becoming increasingly likely that the Macedonian right wing website creators were actually working not just for the ad revenue, and the lulz, but were actually being paid and/or "seed funded' by Russia.
I don't think the proof was there, yet, but some of the Macedonians site operators had said that.
It is because there is no longer a fairness doctrine that they can have their highly biased news sites like Fox News, or Breitbart.
So somehow, they can hold that view, but also the view that sites like Twitter should fairly balance exposure of views from the left and the right, you know, a sort of fairness Doctrine, if you will.
"The primary focus of this legislation is concerned with whether or not the internet functions as a fair and efficient marketplace"
Is that really what the people of Europe want from their Internet? A "fair and efficient marketplace". People want the Internet to give them communications, information, access to infinite sites and information, and also to entertain them. No citizens would mention "Fair and efficient marketplace" on their wishlist, only profiteers and businesses would.
There's nothing wrong with businesses wanting a "fair and efficient marketplace" of the Internet, but it's not right for their needs to over-rule and dominate what the citizenry actually wants.
"True, but in a truly free market (one without cronyism,) there is nothing stopping a competitor from starting up and beating the monopoly with cheaper rates."
Yeah, there TOTALLY is. Monopolists can also use the following tricks:
- economies of scale which lowers cost - cheaper access to capital - locking down needed suppliers to shut out others - setting technical standards, de facto or other, to their preferred technology - patents and IP on those standard technologies - organizing fake grassroots campaigns against newcomers - paid R&D or thinktanks that come out with favorable studies, which trick policymakers (not cronyism, but deceit) - you said "one without cronyism". But why? Does cronyism not exist??? - price dumping (reducing their prices to below profitability in regions where competitors are trying to start, killing their biz model) - focusing their improvements and better infrastructure in specific areas where new entrants are launching - better brand recognition - better amortization of advertising across more customers or addressable market
Whew, dude! I'm just getting started. I could riff a list three times this big off the top of my head.
Are those dirty tricks, or just business for monopolists? Both!
You argue that someone will come along and "knock the monopolist with cheaper rates". This is almost impossible. The monopolist holds all the cards, and the price control, and the ability to "knock competitors out with cheaper rates" is almost always the monopolists tool, not the new entrant!!!
A startup would need a revolutionary (very unusual) discovery that totally turned the market on its head in order to have a market advantage. This does happen in some industries, and monopolists do get beaten, and someday will. But the telco incumbents have been incumbent for about a hundred years...so don't expect a disruption every autumn.
"Monopolies have to play nice" No. No they don't. Not at all. The word "monopoly" effectively means "has market control and so doesn't have to play nice".
"I thought the term "natural monopoly" also referred to things that would be really silly to implement via many competing sources of some commodity."
And you are right.
"Natural Monopoly" is that, and a number of other situations, MOST DEFINITELY including telecoms. Telecoms and utility companies are pretty much the textbook definition of Natural Monopoly.
Re: Really? Physical CARDS that I can't steal like a computer game?
First Point: Cards
It's true. Every time I go to Vegas, I observe the oddity of people playing "card games" on the screens of computers, with virtual dealers. You're so right. Computers CAN simulate a card game.
Of course, those are the nickel games. Walk a few steps over, and -- surprise -- you'll see the people actually gambling money in increments above $10 are all actually playing with real cards. So both virtual and actual cards games can co-exist in the market.
But given the house takes a steady %, and the physical card tables have higher minimums, not only do people still choose to play with real cards, they pay substantially more to do so, which is what economists call a "revealed preference".
So, you are so very wrong.
Second point: Making Money
You joke that Techdirt should, instead, make their money by "writing more free content". I guess you missed the part of the Techdirt business model, which has been oft repeated, and demonstrated here. It's "Connect with Fans (CwF) + Reason to Buy (RtB) = The Business Model"
I wrote one of those, and agree with others: experience writing helps a lot. And even if somebody is naturally gifted, experience would also help them be better.
That said, from the two comments you've written here, it looks like you're fully capable of expressing yourself clearly. There are many percentiles of people below you who are not. So, you're in a place where it's probably worth your while to try.
For the process, everyone is a little different. But if I'm going to write a good article or comment, I need to actually FEEL something or think something. I can write a piece that I don't feel strongly about (for ex: if I were paid to), but it won't be as good. Martin Luther King could be so eloquent and convincing in his speeches, because he was highly motivated and truly believed in his mission. The good thing for you is that you can be choosy: if it's not your job, it's easy to only write when you feel strongly.
Next, I try to imagine what I want to say. If I can come up with any examples or analogies that would fit well, I mentally note them - they are EXTREMELY useful because people can relate to the story. Like the MLK reference above. It can also put your point in a different context, which shakes people out of their fixed opinion. It can point out how they're not evaluating things consistently.
Then, I just start hammering keys.
Last, I look at what I wrote, and make a few changes to make it punchier or better. (The fucked thing is that this always introduces grammatical errors, as a lingering verb tense or plural no longer makes sense.)
Then, realize that most of your words won't be as well-received as you'd hoped, but maybe some will.
Now, after a couple of days, I'm going to agree with you. You were right that ditching the smartphone could improve your privacy.
The reason I see is because, when we did stuff on the web via PC, say visit Facebook, what we did in facebook, and what they knew about us was limited mostly to that tab. Facebook was "siloed".
But when we install the FB app in a smartphone, and give it Permissions during the install, it fully abuses those permissions, and goes to town sucking up all the data it can out of the phone. See this link for an example of how FB is watching EVERY PHONE CALL this guy makes: https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976368845635035138
It is our smartphones that are the nexus of companies leaking out of their silos. The permissions rubric is awful and broken. So, eschewing the smartphone would improve your privacy. But, maybe, you could use a smartphone, but just have fewer apps, and deny most permissions.
Last note: you can go into your smartphone, apple or android, and reduce the permissions of your installed apps.
Ironic that congress, so deeply manipulated by power and moneyed interests, now takes steps to chastise and limit the interwebs for the crime of being manipulated by power and moneyed interests.
I'm not sure what you're proposing would make any difference, at least for me.
I mean, assuming I ditch my smartphone, but keep a dumb phone, I still get my location tracked. That's fairly powerful surveillance and privacy intrusion data. I would have to carry NO phone, and then worry about license plates, facial recognition cams, etc. But no phone would help keep my location private.
So if you use a dumb phone, and your location is now known, what else does it protect you from? Nothing.
I assume that, at home, you're still using the interwebs to look up the things you're interested in, right? So basically, your content choices, postings, communications are all about as vulnerable as your smartphone actions would have been.
Nope, assuming you have a dumb phone, and still use the internet at home and work, you're not making much of a dent in your privacy at all.
The "FIX" would be cold turkey. No phone, no home computer, no ISP.
On the post: Facebook, Whose Support Made FOSTA Law, Now Sued For Facilitating Sex Trafficking Under FOSTA
Re: Re: Backpage?
"because Techdirt NEVER wants corporations to be held liable."...for crimes some other third party commits.
Similarly, YOU never want 'roads' to be held liable...for bank robberies where the criminal used the road.
The real problem here is that Facebook has deep pockets, where the actual criminal probably doesn't. In the US, accusations of guilt tend to follow the money, not the guilty.
On the post: NJ Courts Impose Ridiculous Password Policy 'To Comply With NIST' That Does Exactly What NIST Says Not To Do
Longer Passwords Are Better
If Jersey is not allowing passwords longer than 8 chars, I think we can all agree that this is stupid, not user friendly, and also less secure than longer passwords.
And, of course it's, AGAIN, the opposite of NIST recommendations.
From NIST 800-63B:
"Verifiers SHOULD permit subscriber-chosen memorized secrets at least 64 characters in length."
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: In Defense Of Slow News
Long Reads vs Slow News
- race for scoops & offer hot takes
- write long form stories, like mag articles, a la Atlantic
It seems that, with the others, the only way to get deep thought, analysis, or research is that it must be associated with a looooong article. I do love those articles, but just cannot read many of them because of time constraints.
Overall, I prefer the Techdirt approach, analysis and thought, but retaining some brevity.
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
Re: Re:
They are NOT the square itself, but ARE contiguous with that prime real estate.
As shops on a square lose business, they go away and get replaced by new ones, but the square remains. Similarly, MySpace and Friendster had prime addresses, but those are now Twitter or Facebook.
Still, today, anybody can take a soapbox and go speak/rant in the public square, like Times Square NYC. But one cannot go to Times Square with a soapbox, enter the ESPN Zone restaurant, and deliver a filibuster about how media is controlled by Jews and Disney is tool of globalists.
Just as Alex Jones can set up his own site on the virtual town square at www.inforwars.com -- but maybe not welcome inside Facebook.
On the post: Bad Reporting, Grandstanding Congressmen, Tweeting President Combine For Clusterfuck About Twitter
Re: Re: So, um, now republicans WANT the Fairness Doctrine
It's about hypocrisy. They were staunchly opposed to the Doctrine, but now want a similar doctrine applied to private websites?
They should choose a side and apply it consistently, no?
On the post: As 'DNC Hacked Itself' Conspiracy Theory Collapses, Key Backer Of Claim Exposed As UK Troll
Re: Re: I'm sort of irritated at all those anti-DNC trolls
I don't think the proof was there, yet, but some of the Macedonians site operators had said that.
On the post: Bad Reporting, Grandstanding Congressmen, Tweeting President Combine For Clusterfuck About Twitter
So, um, now republicans WANT the Fairness Doctrine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
It is because there is no longer a fairness doctrine that they can have their highly biased news sites like Fox News, or Breitbart.
So somehow, they can hold that view, but also the view that sites like Twitter should fairly balance exposure of views from the left and the right, you know, a sort of fairness Doctrine, if you will.
On the post: Copyright Industries Reveal Their Ultimate Goal: An Internet Where Everything Online Requires A License From Them
You Had Me At Hello
"The primary focus of this legislation is concerned with whether or not the internet functions as a fair and efficient marketplace"
Is that really what the people of Europe want from their Internet? A "fair and efficient marketplace". People want the Internet to give them communications, information, access to infinite sites and information, and also to entertain them. No citizens would mention "Fair and efficient marketplace" on their wishlist, only profiteers and businesses would.
There's nothing wrong with businesses wanting a "fair and efficient marketplace" of the Internet, but it's not right for their needs to over-rule and dominate what the citizenry actually wants.
On the post: Marsha Blackburn Wants ISPs To Sell 'Fast Lanes' Like 'TSA Pre-Check'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I hate this cunt
On the post: Marsha Blackburn Wants ISPs To Sell 'Fast Lanes' Like 'TSA Pre-Check'
Re: Re: Re: I hate this cunt
Yeah, there TOTALLY is. Monopolists can also use the following tricks:
- economies of scale which lowers cost
- cheaper access to capital
- locking down needed suppliers to shut out others
- setting technical standards, de facto or other, to their preferred technology
- patents and IP on those standard technologies
- organizing fake grassroots campaigns against newcomers
- paid R&D or thinktanks that come out with favorable studies, which trick policymakers (not cronyism, but deceit)
- you said "one without cronyism". But why? Does cronyism not exist???
- price dumping (reducing their prices to below profitability in regions where competitors are trying to start, killing their biz model)
- focusing their improvements and better infrastructure in specific areas where new entrants are launching
- better brand recognition
- better amortization of advertising across more customers or addressable market
Whew, dude! I'm just getting started. I could riff a list three times this big off the top of my head.
Are those dirty tricks, or just business for monopolists? Both!
You argue that someone will come along and "knock the monopolist with cheaper rates". This is almost impossible. The monopolist holds all the cards, and the price control, and the ability to "knock competitors out with cheaper rates" is almost always the monopolists tool, not the new entrant!!!
A startup would need a revolutionary (very unusual) discovery that totally turned the market on its head in order to have a market advantage. This does happen in some industries, and monopolists do get beaten, and someday will. But the telco incumbents have been incumbent for about a hundred years...so don't expect a disruption every autumn.
"Monopolies have to play nice"
No. No they don't. Not at all.
The word "monopoly" effectively means "has market control and so doesn't have to play nice".
On the post: Marsha Blackburn Wants ISPs To Sell 'Fast Lanes' Like 'TSA Pre-Check'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I hate this cunt
And you are right.
"Natural Monopoly" is that, and a number of other situations, MOST DEFINITELY including telecoms. Telecoms and utility companies are pretty much the textbook definition of Natural Monopoly.
On the post: The CIA Made A Card Game... And We're Releasing It
Re: Re: Really? Physical CARDS that I can't steal like a computer game?
Bored games?
On the post: The CIA Made A Card Game... And We're Releasing It
Re: Really? Physical CARDS that I can't steal like a computer game?
It's true. Every time I go to Vegas, I observe the oddity of people playing "card games" on the screens of computers, with virtual dealers. You're so right. Computers CAN simulate a card game.
Of course, those are the nickel games. Walk a few steps over, and -- surprise -- you'll see the people actually gambling money in increments above $10 are all actually playing with real cards. So both virtual and actual cards games can co-exist in the market.
But given the house takes a steady %, and the physical card tables have higher minimums, not only do people still choose to play with real cards, they pay substantially more to do so, which is what economists call a "revealed preference".
So, you are so very wrong.
Second point: Making Money
You joke that Techdirt should, instead, make their money by "writing more free content". I guess you missed the part of the Techdirt business model, which has been oft repeated, and demonstrated here. It's "Connect with Fans (CwF) + Reason to Buy (RtB) = The Business Model"
or CwF + RtB. You can see it here
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/2246525598.shtml
It strikes me that this card game is an incredibly on-point example of that model.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Excellent week
That said, from the two comments you've written here, it looks like you're fully capable of expressing yourself clearly. There are many percentiles of people below you who are not. So, you're in a place where it's probably worth your while to try.
For the process, everyone is a little different. But if I'm going to write a good article or comment, I need to actually FEEL something or think something. I can write a piece that I don't feel strongly about (for ex: if I were paid to), but it won't be as good. Martin Luther King could be so eloquent and convincing in his speeches, because he was highly motivated and truly believed in his mission. The good thing for you is that you can be choosy: if it's not your job, it's easy to only write when you feel strongly.
Next, I try to imagine what I want to say. If I can come up with any examples or analogies that would fit well, I mentally note them - they are EXTREMELY useful because people can relate to the story. Like the MLK reference above. It can also put your point in a different context, which shakes people out of their fixed opinion. It can point out how they're not evaluating things consistently.
Then, I just start hammering keys.
Last, I look at what I wrote, and make a few changes to make it punchier or better. (The fucked thing is that this always introduces grammatical errors, as a lingering verb tense or plural no longer makes sense.)
Then, realize that most of your words won't be as well-received as you'd hoped, but maybe some will.
On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry
Re: Re: There's a fix for that
Now, after a couple of days, I'm going to agree with you. You were right that ditching the smartphone could improve your privacy.
The reason I see is because, when we did stuff on the web via PC, say visit Facebook, what we did in facebook, and what they knew about us was limited mostly to that tab. Facebook was "siloed".
But when we install the FB app in a smartphone, and give it Permissions during the install, it fully abuses those permissions, and goes to town sucking up all the data it can out of the phone. See this link for an example of how FB is watching EVERY PHONE CALL this guy makes: https://twitter.com/dylanmckaynz/status/976368845635035138
It is our smartphones that are the nexus of companies leaking out of their silos. The permissions rubric is awful and broken. So, eschewing the smartphone would improve your privacy. But, maybe, you could use a smartphone, but just have fewer apps, and deny most permissions.
Last note: you can go into your smartphone, apple or android, and reduce the permissions of your installed apps.
On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry
Re: Re: Re: There's a fix for that
On the post: Wherein Facebook Loses Recess For Everyone
Ironic
so deeply manipulated by power and moneyed interests,
now takes steps to chastise and limit the interwebs
for the crime of
being manipulated by power and moneyed interests.
On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry
Nice
Is that yours? Never heard it before.
On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry
Re: There's a fix for that
I mean, assuming I ditch my smartphone, but keep a dumb phone, I still get my location tracked. That's fairly powerful surveillance and privacy intrusion data. I would have to carry NO phone, and then worry about license plates, facial recognition cams, etc. But no phone would help keep my location private.
So if you use a dumb phone, and your location is now known, what else does it protect you from? Nothing.
I assume that, at home, you're still using the interwebs to look up the things you're interested in, right? So basically, your content choices, postings, communications are all about as vulnerable as your smartphone actions would have been.
Nope, assuming you have a dumb phone, and still use the internet at home and work, you're not making much of a dent in your privacy at all.
The "FIX" would be cold turkey. No phone, no home computer, no ISP.
Next >>