Get a story from your site listed on Drudge (it happens to news sites all the time) and you get bombarded with people in a fighting mood. Get your story mentioned in a tweet by Alex Jones or Sarah Palin, and you get tons and tons of visitors who are going to trash every non-bagger commenting on the story.
These sites can see literally thousand of comments (unlike the general 20 to 30 around here) on each and every story they post. The amount of effort required to police it, keep it civil, and NOT offend people by removing rude comments is huge. I can imagine it's pretty hard to justify the issues.
From the stand point of getting people to your site and getting social media plugs, it's much better to move these discussions to platforms like Facebook, where they can go viral in their own ways, outside of the site.
It's a win win, unless you are adamant that a site not having comments is somehow broken.
Let's actually break this story down to it's parts, shall we? Let's run it against against non-tech versions of the same thing to see what it really means.
First and foremost, anyone practiced in the art of lip reading can figure out what you are saying. So nothing new under the sun here. It's been going on for centuries, from what I gather.
CCTV? Been around for a very long time, and it's really only a technology improvement over an observant police officer. Again, nothing new under the sun, police men (and women) have stood on the corner watching things for a very long time indeed.
So what we in fact have here isn't anything new except for "technology allows it / does it faster / better / more". Yet, it has been a standard argument around these parts of years that (as an example) piracy is something you have to live with because technology allows it. You get the good with the bad, right?
It's all of the benefits of technology, and all it's doing is what was already done, just an a much higher volume and potential.
See the "IoT spying" story for more. Basically, you give up more about yourself willingly than anyone will scoop off of you in this manner. Worry about the big stuff, not the details!
Actually, this needed the STTNG double face palm, because one face palm isn't enough.
IoT devices are by definition spying on you. Many of the devices are essentially non-functional without an internet connection, and seem to depend on a central host to do some or most of the work of configuring and maintain them. You are already sharing plenty of data with the maker of the product. Each of those companies in turn is anonymizing your data (slightly) and selling it to others, who collect data from many other sources.
Your ISP is the least of your concern. In fact while you may have a single ISP at home, you are very likely using a different company for wireless, a different company at your workplace / office, and you may connect to another ISP yet through wi-fi at the coffee shop. Your ISP actually has the least amount of data about you.
Now Google, Google has lots. If you are using an android device, you are being tracked quite solidly. If you leave yourself logged into gmail (which is a default, it seems) and don't specifically deny them the right, Google also collect all of your location data. They know exactly where you have been. They know your searches, they know which apps you have downloaded to run your IoT things, and they likely know when you actually use those apps. Google tracks you regardless of the ISP you use, the country you are in... no matter where you go, you connect the internet and your phone is blabbing way more about you than some IoT device.
IoT devices and ISPs is perhaps the least of your concerns, more so because we spend all of our lives now absolutely screaming our actions out online to a whole host of companies and services. Google, Facebook, Twitter... they know who you are. Did you take an Uber or rent an AirBnB? There ya go.
Worry about the big stuff. IoT tracking isn't the big end of the stick.
People are not buying these things as an alternative to piracy (they will continue to pirate), but because of the factors of coolness and functionality.
I played the first one with friends a while back. It was amazing. The game play was correct, everything worked, there was no funkiness, no weird key combinations to remember, and everything was correct in speed and experience. Ripped games often don't work exactly as intended, in part because many of the games depended on game clock or cycles to time things. Get that even slighlty wrong, and the games don't play well.
People still want stuff for free, there is no denying that. They are also sometimes willing to pay for a superior product, especially one that all the piracy in the world cannot "emulate".
Re: Phantom 'safety' trumps legal rights apparently
There is legal remedy, but it's very, very narrow in scope.
As for Phanton safety, consider this: Would you feel comfortable flying if you could just want to your gate and get on with your carry on bags unchecked, no screening, no nothing, just a check to make sure you have a boarding pass?
I suspect that for most people, the answer would be a big fat no. While you may feel it's phantom security or security theater, most people know that it's effective compared to the era without it, when planes were routinely hijacked and the public's lives put in danger on a very regular basis.
However, the money doesn't leave the economy. The economy doesn't shrink 1.5 billion a week because of patent trolls. Depending on how fast they spend it (and you know they do), they are likely accelerating the economy by buying expensive crap, paying to much for rent, and generally trying to live the good life as quickly as possible.
So the economy bears no cost, which is my point. Patent trolling is neutral to the economy, and if it makes the money move around faster, it might even improve it.
With Julian Assange hiding out from the boogieman, Wikileaks already looks really, really bad.
Then the 2016 election came and they went even worse, seeming intent on releasing information timed to cause the most harm, and not to inform. They looked way too much like they were playing for outside forces (aka Russia or China).
Wikileaks as an idea is good. In execution, it's terrible, because rather than just posting the info and being done, they have politial motivations and time releases to cause the most problems. They withhold information until it's the best time for Wikileaks to benefit from it's release. That's not transparency, that is the very worst use of information possible.
As soon as Wikileaks decides to hold something back, even for a day, they stop being transparent and start being political. Since they are clearly not working for anything pro-US, they are clearly on the other side - or their own side. Either way, they merit a lot more attention, and shining a light on their covert links to certain governments would be an improvement.
Transparency (like free speech) starts at home. If you are not transparent yourself, holding everyone else up to a higher standard is bullshit at it's very best.
Shame on Wyden for supporting Assange in any manner.
I can remember arguing this point from the other side, and being told that money is not lost, just "goes somewhere else" in the economy:
"Patent trolls cost the U.S. economy $80 billion each year, or about $1.5 billion a week. The billions of dollars wasted in this way are funds that can't be invested in research and development or in hiring the innovative talent needed to develop new products and grow the U.S. economy."
So does that 80 billion just disappear? Or is it used by the patent "trolls" to buy patents from people who actually do R&D and work on things? Since the trolls themselves don't invent new stuff, they have to be using the money to pay for existing patents, thus financing the next wave - just not in the same place you are looking.
I agree. But even when you scale it up, the number is still really, really small overall. Even in ramp up mode, it means 95% are on the other side, an overwhelming majority if there ever was one.
I don't see where the UK is obligated to either tell him or arrest him, especially if no specific arrest warrant has been issued. Moreover, if they know the guy is going to walk into the other jurisdiction all by himself, why start something?
Extradition hearings are an expensive deal. The UK already has the spectre of Assange and his endlessly non-compliance to deal with. They don't need another guy holing up in an embassy to avoid extradition.
The UK made a wise choice here. There was no reason to get involved.
"A couple pieces of legislation aimed at creating a border search warrant requirement have been introduced, but will be facing more opposition than usual."
Of course there is opposition, and it's not just from the usual sources. Smart people understand that you cannot hamstring the border inspection process with the need for warrants. You start to open up the gates by saying you need a warrant for certain things, and SCOTUS will soon rule that any border search beyond your passport would need one.
You don't want to start the train down that track... just like "Silver Streak" it ain't gotta stop until it hits a wall... HELLO Chicago!
Throttling a class at all times is actually very good management. Network management isn't just about managing available bandwidth, it's about not creating expectations that you cannot meet.
If video is solid capped at 10meg a second, no matter what, you never create the expectation of more. Someone might be up at 3AM and suddenly they are streaming 4k video because the network is relatively quiet. The next day, they try to do the same and it no longer works. Yeah, they are calling their provider names. But if the video last night ran at 10meg, and runs today at 10 meg, they have the same expectations over time.
The levels they are capping at are VERY high, more than enough for HD quality video.
You have to love first world problems, "I can't stream my 4k videos!".
Is this really a big issue?
If you want a big issue, let's discuss total possible bandwidth for a cellular tower. It isn't an unlimited resource. There is a limit. From what I could find, you are looking at about 100mbps per "sector", with most towers having three sectors. Each one maxes at 100, so a total of 300 per tower. 4G video would be 10mbps or more, so that would be 10% of a sector to service a single stream.
It's not intelligent to assume that this is something they would support.
I don't have a problem with a wireless carrier putting limits on all things as a group to handle network load. Video is a big user and it makes sense. It's not a net neutrality issue if it's applied evenly to all video providers.
Karl, one thing you need to learn is that poles are not only for ISPs. Phone companies are still phone companies first, and not just an ISP, in the same manner that cable companies are not just ISPs, but also the cable company.
Most poles are utility poles that include medium current electricity. The local power company is often the ones who first installed the poles, long before anyone else came along.
So trying to turn it into a battle of ISPs, ignored the larger scope of use of the poles.
Google is very careful to use this stuff as a bit of an excuse. They found out it's really, really, really freaking expensive to set this stuff up, and even more expensive to maintain customer service for it - soemthing google is not good at in the first place. When they looked at the return on their various moonshot and long term projects, they figured out pretty quickly it wasn't working and stopped all future development.
Even when cherry picking their installs, they apparently weren't doing well.
Well, if the person is (a) in CHina, and (b) using Google services in China, and (c) they are dealing with Google China offices, then perhaps.
Otherwise, it would fail to meet the standards of the judgement. A Chinese person using Google in the US directly would already being making a step to avoid his government, and the action would clearly be his choice and not that of Google.
The decision makes sense, for very simple reasons.
Google and the client are in the US. The data is sourced in the US and will only normally be used in the US. Storing it offshore appears to be nothing more than an attempt to create a barrier between law enforcement and the data, in a wholesale way.
My guess is that Google has been hoping that the courts would rule in their favor so they can crow about keeping consumer data private. Being tricky and trying to slide around the law is never a good thing.
"That's called 'competition', and last I checked 'felony interference with a business model' was a joke, not an actual law. If AirBnB is leading to people not being willing to pay as much then it's on the hotels to demonstrate why they are worth paying more."
Well, here's the thing - they can only do it by ignoring the laws and rules that exist. The hotel industry is bound by them (some would say they bound themselves), and thus must pay for and maintain themselves to the levels expected by the law. You know, silly things like fire alarms, sprinklers, marked exits, minimum corridor widths, access for the disabled, licnsing, insurance, inspections, and on and on and on.
AirBnB? Nada. Any room, house, apartment, hovel, whatever - list it, and people will take it. No minimum standards, no safety, no licensing, no insurance, no emergency egress, and so on.
If AirBnB competes with hotels by offering hotel services (one night accommodations) then they should be bound by them. Saying they are not alike is a cop out, they are the same market.
"One involves a professional business focused on renting out rooms as their entire business model, the other not-so-professionals renting out rooms to make some extra cash."
A convenient half truth. More and more of these "sharing" sites are professionals trying to maximize return on real estate investments. When you see whole house / whole apartment / whole whatever in a rental, you can almost be certain that it's a pro or semi-pro who has figured out the numbers. Many hosts get more for a single 1 week vacation rental than they do for a month of rental to a local tenent, even if the housing supply is tight. I know in my local market (won't say, but it is a common destination) the prices for AirBnB properties near mine are generally monthly local rental as a the weekly price, or about 25% of the monthly rental price on shorter daily rentals. So they need only a single visitor for 4 days each month to make the same income.
"To the extent the two might overlap the rules should be applied only to the extent that it serves the public's best interest, not the interest of the hotel industry."
The public's best interesting and what the public thinks is it's best interest at any given money are usually divergent concepts. People want cheaper places to stay on vacations, but they don't consider the risks (due to lack of safety inspections, insurance, fire equipment, etc), nor do they consider the implications on the local housing rental market.
Good example here, thousands of full units off the local rental market. That can have a huge impact.
There is also the question of property values. If the houses or units next to you are used for AirBnB, you have a lot of people coming and going. Some of them will be nice, some of them will be... well... and in some cases, properties end up turned into party houses. Having commercial activities in residential zones is generally not a good idea. The value of your home / condo / whathaveyou may be harmed by commercial use next door.
So, what is the public's interest? For someone looking for a cheap rental when they go to LA next time, all of the above concerns are not important. They just want it cheaper. That is their interest at the moment. Is it right?
You are correct - posts held for moderation and posts flagged have nothing to do with each other.
"Except flag-throwing users have zero control over what others can read, since the flagged trolling/abuse remains in-place and readable, should one choose to do so. "
Not completely true. Flagged comments are (a) not presented at the same time as others, and (b) are not indexed by Google, and (c) are as a result not searchable on Google. In essence, the comments are not given the same standing or exposure.
"Even if Techdirt were to start kicking you vermin to the curb, it still wouldn't be censorship or violating your free speech, just the opposite. Techdirt has the first-amendment right to free association. They're 100% in their rights if they choose to no longer have their speech platform associated with perpetual liars."
You are correct again, but you are managing to completely miss the point. Techdirt often points out and mocks sites that turn off comments or otherwise disable comment son their sites, mocking their lack of "free speech". In my books, if Techdirt wants to be a bastion of free speech, then that should start at home.
The use of comment flagging because you don't agree with the opinion expressed isn't free speech. It's working to eliminate speech you don't like. That's the first step in hate.
On the post: Judge Tosses Sarah Palin's Defamation Suit Against The New York Times, Says No Actual Malice
Since all citizens are also journalists now, why should there be a double standard?
On the post: NPR Gives Up On News Comments; After All, Who Cares What Your Customers Have To Say?
Get a story from your site listed on Drudge (it happens to news sites all the time) and you get bombarded with people in a fighting mood. Get your story mentioned in a tweet by Alex Jones or Sarah Palin, and you get tons and tons of visitors who are going to trash every non-bagger commenting on the story.
These sites can see literally thousand of comments (unlike the general 20 to 30 around here) on each and every story they post. The amount of effort required to police it, keep it civil, and NOT offend people by removing rude comments is huge. I can imagine it's pretty hard to justify the issues.
From the stand point of getting people to your site and getting social media plugs, it's much better to move these discussions to platforms like Facebook, where they can go viral in their own ways, outside of the site.
It's a win win, unless you are adamant that a site not having comments is somehow broken.
On the post: CCTV + Lip-Reading Software = Even Less Privacy, Even More Surveillance
First and foremost, anyone practiced in the art of lip reading can figure out what you are saying. So nothing new under the sun here. It's been going on for centuries, from what I gather.
CCTV? Been around for a very long time, and it's really only a technology improvement over an observant police officer. Again, nothing new under the sun, police men (and women) have stood on the corner watching things for a very long time indeed.
So what we in fact have here isn't anything new except for "technology allows it / does it faster / better / more". Yet, it has been a standard argument around these parts of years that (as an example) piracy is something you have to live with because technology allows it. You get the good with the bad, right?
It's all of the benefits of technology, and all it's doing is what was already done, just an a much higher volume and potential.
See the "IoT spying" story for more. Basically, you give up more about yourself willingly than anyone will scoop off of you in this manner. Worry about the big stuff, not the details!
On the post: IOT Devices Provide Comcast A Wonderful New Opportunity To Spy On You
facepalm
IoT devices are by definition spying on you. Many of the devices are essentially non-functional without an internet connection, and seem to depend on a central host to do some or most of the work of configuring and maintain them. You are already sharing plenty of data with the maker of the product. Each of those companies in turn is anonymizing your data (slightly) and selling it to others, who collect data from many other sources.
Your ISP is the least of your concern. In fact while you may have a single ISP at home, you are very likely using a different company for wireless, a different company at your workplace / office, and you may connect to another ISP yet through wi-fi at the coffee shop. Your ISP actually has the least amount of data about you.
Now Google, Google has lots. If you are using an android device, you are being tracked quite solidly. If you leave yourself logged into gmail (which is a default, it seems) and don't specifically deny them the right, Google also collect all of your location data. They know exactly where you have been. They know your searches, they know which apps you have downloaded to run your IoT things, and they likely know when you actually use those apps. Google tracks you regardless of the ISP you use, the country you are in... no matter where you go, you connect the internet and your phone is blabbing way more about you than some IoT device.
IoT devices and ISPs is perhaps the least of your concerns, more so because we spend all of our lives now absolutely screaming our actions out online to a whole host of companies and services. Google, Facebook, Twitter... they know who you are. Did you take an Uber or rent an AirBnB? There ya go.
Worry about the big stuff. IoT tracking isn't the big end of the stick.
On the post: If 'Everyone Just Wants Free Stuff' Is Responsible For Piracy, Why Can't Nintendo Keep Its Classic Consoles In Stock?
Re:
People are not buying these things as an alternative to piracy (they will continue to pirate), but because of the factors of coolness and functionality.
I played the first one with friends a while back. It was amazing. The game play was correct, everything worked, there was no funkiness, no weird key combinations to remember, and everything was correct in speed and experience. Ripped games often don't work exactly as intended, in part because many of the games depended on game clock or cycles to time things. Get that even slighlty wrong, and the games don't play well.
People still want stuff for free, there is no denying that. They are also sometimes willing to pay for a superior product, especially one that all the piracy in the world cannot "emulate".
On the post: Court: TSA Agents Can Be Shielded From Certain Civil Rights Lawsuits Because They're Too Important
Re: Phantom 'safety' trumps legal rights apparently
As for Phanton safety, consider this: Would you feel comfortable flying if you could just want to your gate and get on with your carry on bags unchecked, no screening, no nothing, just a check to make sure you have a boarding pass?
I suspect that for most people, the answer would be a big fat no. While you may feel it's phantom security or security theater, most people know that it's effective compared to the era without it, when planes were routinely hijacked and the public's lives put in danger on a very regular basis.
On the post: Supreme Court Has Another Chance To Help Take Down The Patent Trolls
Re: Re: Funny number game?
However, the money doesn't leave the economy. The economy doesn't shrink 1.5 billion a week because of patent trolls. Depending on how fast they spend it (and you know they do), they are likely accelerating the economy by buying expensive crap, paying to much for rent, and generally trying to live the good life as quickly as possible.
So the economy bears no cost, which is my point. Patent trolling is neutral to the economy, and if it makes the money move around faster, it might even improve it.
On the post: Intelligence Committee Pins A 'Surveil Me' Sign On Wikileaks' Back In Latest Authorization Bill
No shock
Then the 2016 election came and they went even worse, seeming intent on releasing information timed to cause the most harm, and not to inform. They looked way too much like they were playing for outside forces (aka Russia or China).
Wikileaks as an idea is good. In execution, it's terrible, because rather than just posting the info and being done, they have politial motivations and time releases to cause the most problems. They withhold information until it's the best time for Wikileaks to benefit from it's release. That's not transparency, that is the very worst use of information possible.
As soon as Wikileaks decides to hold something back, even for a day, they stop being transparent and start being political. Since they are clearly not working for anything pro-US, they are clearly on the other side - or their own side. Either way, they merit a lot more attention, and shining a light on their covert links to certain governments would be an improvement.
Transparency (like free speech) starts at home. If you are not transparent yourself, holding everyone else up to a higher standard is bullshit at it's very best.
Shame on Wyden for supporting Assange in any manner.
On the post: Supreme Court Has Another Chance To Help Take Down The Patent Trolls
Funny number game?
"Patent trolls cost the U.S. economy $80 billion each year, or about $1.5 billion a week. The billions of dollars wasted in this way are funds that can't be invested in research and development or in hiring the innovative talent needed to develop new products and grow the U.S. economy."
So does that 80 billion just disappear? Or is it used by the patent "trolls" to buy patents from people who actually do R&D and work on things? Since the trolls themselves don't invent new stuff, they have to be using the money to pay for existing patents, thus financing the next wave - just not in the same place you are looking.
So which way is it?
On the post: EFF, Others Think It Would Be Cool If The FCC Stopped Hiding 47,000 Net Neutrality Complaints
Re: Re: Paude
On the post: EFF, Others Think It Would Be Cool If The FCC Stopped Hiding 47,000 Net Neutrality Complaints
Paude
Of course it should... somewhere near 100 million subscribers, and 47,000 complains... so 0.047%? Damn, those ISPs are BAD!
On the post: GCHQ Knew FBI Wanted To Arrest MalwareTech, Let Him Fly To The US To Be Arrested There
Extradition... expensive?
Extradition hearings are an expensive deal. The UK already has the spectre of Assange and his endlessly non-compliance to deal with. They don't need another guy holing up in an embassy to avoid extradition.
The UK made a wise choice here. There was no reason to get involved.
On the post: Border Device Searches Continue To Increase, Threatening More Than Just The 4th Amendment
Duh
Of course there is opposition, and it's not just from the usual sources. Smart people understand that you cannot hamstring the border inspection process with the need for warrants. You start to open up the gates by saying you need a warrant for certain things, and SCOTUS will soon rule that any border search beyond your passport would need one.
You don't want to start the train down that track... just like "Silver Streak" it ain't gotta stop until it hits a wall... HELLO Chicago!
On the post: Verizon Begins Throttling Wireless Users, Effectively Bans 4K Streaming
Re: Re: Oh Boo hoo!
If video is solid capped at 10meg a second, no matter what, you never create the expectation of more. Someone might be up at 3AM and suddenly they are streaming 4k video because the network is relatively quiet. The next day, they try to do the same and it no longer works. Yeah, they are calling their provider names. But if the video last night ran at 10meg, and runs today at 10 meg, they have the same expectations over time.
The levels they are capping at are VERY high, more than enough for HD quality video.
On the post: Verizon Begins Throttling Wireless Users, Effectively Bans 4K Streaming
Oh Boo hoo!
Is this really a big issue?
If you want a big issue, let's discuss total possible bandwidth for a cellular tower. It isn't an unlimited resource. There is a limit. From what I could find, you are looking at about 100mbps per "sector", with most towers having three sectors. Each one maxes at 100, so a total of 300 per tower. 4G video would be 10mbps or more, so that would be 10% of a sector to service a single stream.
It's not intelligent to assume that this is something they would support.
I don't have a problem with a wireless carrier putting limits on all things as a group to handle network load. Video is a big user and it makes sense. It's not a net neutrality issue if it's applied evenly to all video providers.
On the post: Judge Kills AT&T's Attempt To Thwart Google Fiber Competition In Louisville
Most poles are utility poles that include medium current electricity. The local power company is often the ones who first installed the poles, long before anyone else came along.
So trying to turn it into a battle of ISPs, ignored the larger scope of use of the poles.
Google is very careful to use this stuff as a bit of an excuse. They found out it's really, really, really freaking expensive to set this stuff up, and even more expensive to maintain customer service for it - soemthing google is not good at in the first place. When they looked at the return on their various moonshot and long term projects, they figured out pretty quickly it wasn't working and stopped all future development.
Even when cherry picking their installs, they apparently weren't doing well.
On the post: Federal Judge Upholds Magistrate's Ruling, Says Google Must Hand Over Data From Overseas Servers
Re:
Otherwise, it would fail to meet the standards of the judgement. A Chinese person using Google in the US directly would already being making a step to avoid his government, and the action would clearly be his choice and not that of Google.
On the post: Federal Judge Upholds Magistrate's Ruling, Says Google Must Hand Over Data From Overseas Servers
Decision Makes Sense
Google and the client are in the US. The data is sourced in the US and will only normally be used in the US. Storing it offshore appears to be nothing more than an attempt to create a barrier between law enforcement and the data, in a wholesale way.
My guess is that Google has been hoping that the courts would rule in their favor so they can crow about keeping consumer data private. Being tricky and trying to slide around the law is never a good thing.
On the post: The Dangerous Rise Of Unproductive Entrepreneurship
Re: Re:
Well, here's the thing - they can only do it by ignoring the laws and rules that exist. The hotel industry is bound by them (some would say they bound themselves), and thus must pay for and maintain themselves to the levels expected by the law. You know, silly things like fire alarms, sprinklers, marked exits, minimum corridor widths, access for the disabled, licnsing, insurance, inspections, and on and on and on.
AirBnB? Nada. Any room, house, apartment, hovel, whatever - list it, and people will take it. No minimum standards, no safety, no licensing, no insurance, no emergency egress, and so on.
If AirBnB competes with hotels by offering hotel services (one night accommodations) then they should be bound by them. Saying they are not alike is a cop out, they are the same market.
"One involves a professional business focused on renting out rooms as their entire business model, the other not-so-professionals renting out rooms to make some extra cash."
A convenient half truth. More and more of these "sharing" sites are professionals trying to maximize return on real estate investments. When you see whole house / whole apartment / whole whatever in a rental, you can almost be certain that it's a pro or semi-pro who has figured out the numbers. Many hosts get more for a single 1 week vacation rental than they do for a month of rental to a local tenent, even if the housing supply is tight. I know in my local market (won't say, but it is a common destination) the prices for AirBnB properties near mine are generally monthly local rental as a the weekly price, or about 25% of the monthly rental price on shorter daily rentals. So they need only a single visitor for 4 days each month to make the same income.
"To the extent the two might overlap the rules should be applied only to the extent that it serves the public's best interest, not the interest of the hotel industry."
The public's best interesting and what the public thinks is it's best interest at any given money are usually divergent concepts. People want cheaper places to stay on vacations, but they don't consider the risks (due to lack of safety inspections, insurance, fire equipment, etc), nor do they consider the implications on the local housing rental market.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Airbnb-Housing-Rental-Investigation-424091834.html
Good example here, thousands of full units off the local rental market. That can have a huge impact.
There is also the question of property values. If the houses or units next to you are used for AirBnB, you have a lot of people coming and going. Some of them will be nice, some of them will be... well... and in some cases, properties end up turned into party houses. Having commercial activities in residential zones is generally not a good idea. The value of your home / condo / whathaveyou may be harmed by commercial use next door.
So, what is the public's interest? For someone looking for a cheap rental when they go to LA next time, all of the above concerns are not important. They just want it cheaper. That is their interest at the moment. Is it right?
On the post: EFF Pioneer Awards: Chelsea Manning, Annie Game... And Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Except flag-throwing users have zero control over what others can read, since the flagged trolling/abuse remains in-place and readable, should one choose to do so. "
Not completely true. Flagged comments are (a) not presented at the same time as others, and (b) are not indexed by Google, and (c) are as a result not searchable on Google. In essence, the comments are not given the same standing or exposure.
"Even if Techdirt were to start kicking you vermin to the curb, it still wouldn't be censorship or violating your free speech, just the opposite. Techdirt has the first-amendment right to free association. They're 100% in their rights if they choose to no longer have their speech platform associated with perpetual liars."
You are correct again, but you are managing to completely miss the point. Techdirt often points out and mocks sites that turn off comments or otherwise disable comment son their sites, mocking their lack of "free speech". In my books, if Techdirt wants to be a bastion of free speech, then that should start at home.
The use of comment flagging because you don't agree with the opinion expressed isn't free speech. It's working to eliminate speech you don't like. That's the first step in hate.
Next >>