Re: Re: Re: It isn't cheaper if you have to pay forever
Unfortunately it'd be hard to find a supplier who didn't commit fraud by pretending that lend/lease/licence = purchase. What we actually need is an expansion of fraud law to cover such blatantly misleading and anti-competitive practices. In a government owned and controlled by corporations, good luck with that.
the party's IT/internet focus HAS attracted quite a few adherents of the wrong side of Gamersgate. The misogeny often comes from neckbeard incels and general douchebags rather than, as is usually the case with the oldtime incumbent parties, because the party leadership is still running on the social mores of the early 18th century and have a hard time grasping that a woman can think for herself and vote.
That implies that such attitudes have been there from the get-go. I can see that...
**"I'm being put off by the anarchists who routinely insult people of faith in various online locations..."
Ooops? o_O**
Person of faith here. I saw Christian-bashing on Rick Falkvinge's blog comments where they ganged up on a chap wanting to help with copyright reform. It was ugly. Haven't been back since. I can take a bit of ragging but a total dogpile? No. I don't like extreme anything, whatever hat it's wearing at the time.
You would THINK that bringing actual facts into politics shouldn't be that hard. Shouldn't.
People have blind spots where their pet issues are concerned. I know a Pirate who's mad keen on EU federalisation and also love nuclear power despite the documented problems of waste pollution. Nice chap, but can't see the wood for the trees where those issues are concerned.
And yet I think that today my offhand guess would be that in europe at least some 80% of the legislative effort has absolutely no basis in fact or worse, is in defiance of the facts.
You may well be correct, I won't argue with you over that.
I'm assuming that outcry will be ignored because the EU commission has become better at sneaking unacceptable legislation past the EP - as witnessed during the copyright directive farce.
If we'd had more people on it, the outcome might have been different. We're not engaged enough; the campaign shouldn't end because the Commission got their way, it ends when they've been kicked into touch. When ACTA bit the dust, Karel de Gucht was reminded that Parliament appoints commissioners and can replace them. Assuming the case is the same, we need to engage more with our MEPs to remind them of that. It means we don't just contact them when we're not happy about a new law, we contact them regularly and encourage them to hold the Commissioners to account. That we don't is the problem.
Or that the legislation will be tabled during a time when the public has something else to be outraged or scared about.
I can see that, so we need to be talking to our MEPs to encourage them to ensure these things aren't sneaked through.
What I'm NOT assuming is that the new feudal overlors in the EU commission and bureaucracy will suddenly develop democratic values and a sense of reason and proportion.
Right behind them are the corporate puppetmasters ensuring their will is done. We need a public interest lobby to counter them. Two can play at that game, and they need to play it well.
Let's face it, even if Brexit is a shit-show, I'd lay good odds that thirty years from now the EU will have to use military force to keep half its members from seceding in disgust.
Brexit is being run by the most incompetent PM we've ever had, and May was a numbnut! I can't see where the EU is going to get this military force from when it's dominated by France and Germany and some of the bigger countries have ever-growing cadres of anti-EU factions. The EU is going to have to drop the federalism if it wants to survive long-term. During ACTA, the Poles were a major player in terms of getting it killed. Other members of former Soviet satellite states remember the oppression they suffered. That's what we leveraged to kill ACTA and it worked like a charm. As I've said before, when dealing with people you can't take a one-size-fits-all approach. Find out what button to press and jump on it. With former Soviet sattelite states, it's surveillance. With the Right-neoliberal types, it's The Market. With left-liberal types, it's fairness to workers and the vulnerable. Yes indeed, a full time public interest lobby is required to counter the corporate lobbies. Stat.
Similar as in Sweden when Anna Troberg walked. We lose a LOT of very good people because Pirate Party men are trying to run the party in the same way the large incumbent parties do it and the type of women drawn to pirate politics aren't doormats who accept that.
Damn straight we're not. Anyone who's serious about running the party in such a way as to make it as appealing as possible to the greatest number of people while maintaining our principles needs to take a more realistic approach. Basically, lose the patriarchal attitudes and focus on inclusivity. I'm being put off by the anarchists who routinely insult people of faith in various online locations, as if we are so few in number that pushing us away won't matter in the long term. It totally will. Demagoguery over UBI and other pie-in-the-sky policies are also off-putting and will relegate us to the outer edges of political activity unless they focus on evidence-based policy-making instead.
Dang! I didn't know about that. Thank you for letting me know. Full story here.
You're right. The trouble is, the party is dominated by increasingly right wing libertarian-type men, i.e. they're not interested in women feeling safe around them. Julia is a big loss. I really liked her as a politician.
How about vetting search engines for defamation they allow to remain in their servers even after it's pointed out that it's defamatory?
The crap about me remained on their servers until it was taken down by the hosting sites and the Google cache cleared. "Pointing out" and proving defamation are different things, and laws vary from country to country. In America, I understand they vary from state to state. You're barking up the wrong tree. If a defamation is hosted anywhere, it's on the website on which the comments are published. Your best bet is to contact the website owners/mods with any evidence you have that the posts are incorrect or violate their TOS. When they're gone from the host they'll go from the search engines. Why? THIS IS HOW SEARCH ENGINES WORK! They index website content.
Some websites might not comply, but your own conduct should be proof enough of your innocence. It was in my case. I have ZERO black marks against my name because it's hard to take an hysterical anonymous troll seriously when he accuses you of a criminal offence yet does not report this to the authorities.
We've also had people who are NOT pedophiles falsely accused of pedophilia, harmed or even KILLED by "vigilantes" who find the lies on Google, we've had women targeted for revenge porn who can't sue the search engines in the US (the exception was a case where the RP site owner was involved in the upuloading), and we've had businesses suffer reputation blackmail with threats of spambots destroying them with false reviews that sites are immune from being sued over (so you can't trust any internet advertising).
Google is not the source of those lies. It's like suing the Government for building the road on which an assailant travelled or a car manufacturer for building the car. Go to the source and report. If they don't comply, you have the option to sue if you can afford it. I was polite and provided proof to all the website admins where the lies about me were hosted. Result: only one unreliable website hosts them. That website gave me the option to post a rebuttal linking to the evidence proving my accuser is a troll. Result: anyone clicking on that link sees my rebuttal. So I'm both accused and proven innocent every time someone clicks on the link.
Take away 230 protection and sites have to stand behind what appears on them, as they should.
Sites should not be obliged to police their users' behaviour, but I'm with you on enforcement of TOS. If a user violates TOS, report it. If they don't deal with it, at least leave a rebuttal so people can see both sides of the story. In my case it was [accusation] v [proof of troll activity]. No harm done to me.
Anyone who thinks someone being falsely accused of pedophilia (or a revenge porn victim, etc.) is an "acceptable loss" is not worth much in this debate.
Give the farmer back his straw. Nobody is saying that. You are arguing in bad faith if you insist that people who disagree with you are in favour of malfeasance. We're not. You're using the wrong tool for the job. You refuse to acknowledge that I myself was subject to false allegations. Had I lost my job over it, would I have blamed anyone but the troll? No. The troll alone is responsible for his behaviour.
Moderation at scale is quite possible if it's based on a notice-and-takedown scheme. Leaving people defenseless against a single internet 4Chan type with an axe to grind is not the answer.
Nobody is "defenseless" against the imaginary might of a 4Chan-type troll. In any case, the people attacked by vigilante mobs over accusations of kiddie fiddling (it happened over here in the UK) were victims of The Sun, a Murdoch gutter tabloid rag. It wasn't the internet, it was an irresponsible "newspaper." ::Spits::
People have a right to protect their good name.
You ain't gonna do that by turning the internet into an authoritarian dictatorship, bub.
Eh, more of a butthurt money troll. Remember when Prenda went after business based on accessibility? Same idea, but this time it's about suing search engines because some creep posted some horrible comments somewhere.
Ahhh! You were doing so well, btr1701. I gave you your third Insightful vote for the comment above this but now... no. Bad btr1701.
First of all, where there is wisdom in a foreign law, why not implement it IF it doesn't conflict with the Constitution?
Secondly, "old crone?" No need to be ageist and sexist, mate. Not okay. Your right wing knuckledragger slip is showing.
Thirdly, foreigners actually do make law for the United States via free trade agreements, as we are constantly reminded right here on TD. When Congress passes them into law, they cite "our international obligations" as the reason for doing so. Copyright law is a classic example thereof.
Take your right wing blinkers off, they're stopping you from seeing the truth.
That is nonsense, Jhon. Search engines can't control people's posting habits, they can only try to clean up after the fact. Your ignorance of how indexing works is not my problem and it shouldn't be anyone's.
Remember, delisting the link doesn't mean the comment can't be found, it's just harder to find. Anyone who has the link and posts it again, or takes a screenshot and therefore changes the link, gets it re-listed automatically. No one could afford to hire the number of butthurt monitors required to make your mad idea work.
^This. Moderation at scale is hard. It's difficult enough to get the most egregious content delisted, but to police our speech in case it causes offence? I routinely slag off politicians because I think they're doing a lousy job. If such a law were passed and someone complained, my blog would be shuttered. We've already had police that the door of a blogger for complaining about UKIP on his blog.
Unless we're all happy to live in a totalitarian dystopia in which only Teletubbies-level conversation is acceptable, I say we should nip this censorial crap in the bud and push back against such laws. Hard. Law-making should be based on evidence, not knee-jerk reactions to the worst case scenarios.
And anyone who was reported to anything for behaving badly would have that speech silenced. Results: all sorts of bad behaviour going unchecked and unchallenged.
We've already had convicted paedophiles try to get search results removed because they contained details of their criminal convictions. Do you really want no way of vetting people for criminal activity?
Now imagine the impact on newspapers and other media outlets. They would lose access to the internet as their reports would be suppressed from the search results. That's what you want, Jhon, isn't it?
On the post: The End Of Ownership, Military Edition: Even The US Military Can't Fix Its Own Equipment Without Right To Repair Laws
Re: Re: Re: It isn't cheaper if you have to pay forever
Unfortunately it'd be hard to find a supplier who didn't commit fraud by pretending that lend/lease/licence = purchase. What we actually need is an expansion of fraud law to cover such blatantly misleading and anti-competitive practices. In a government owned and controlled by corporations, good luck with that.
On the post: Germany's CDU, Angela Merkel's Party Of Fuddy-Duddies, Decides To Join The Cool Kids: Backs Open Standards, Open Source, Open Data, Open APIs -- Open Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pretty usual lies
the party's IT/internet focus HAS attracted quite a few adherents of the wrong side of Gamersgate. The misogeny often comes from neckbeard incels and general douchebags rather than, as is usually the case with the oldtime incumbent parties, because the party leadership is still running on the social mores of the early 18th century and have a hard time grasping that a woman can think for herself and vote.
That implies that such attitudes have been there from the get-go. I can see that...
**"I'm being put off by the anarchists who routinely insult people of faith in various online locations..."
Ooops? o_O**
Person of faith here. I saw Christian-bashing on Rick Falkvinge's blog comments where they ganged up on a chap wanting to help with copyright reform. It was ugly. Haven't been back since. I can take a bit of ragging but a total dogpile? No. I don't like extreme anything, whatever hat it's wearing at the time.
You would THINK that bringing actual facts into politics shouldn't be that hard. Shouldn't.
People have blind spots where their pet issues are concerned. I know a Pirate who's mad keen on EU federalisation and also love nuclear power despite the documented problems of waste pollution. Nice chap, but can't see the wood for the trees where those issues are concerned.
And yet I think that today my offhand guess would be that in europe at least some 80% of the legislative effort has absolutely no basis in fact or worse, is in defiance of the facts.
You may well be correct, I won't argue with you over that.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techxit
I'm assuming that outcry will be ignored because the EU commission has become better at sneaking unacceptable legislation past the EP - as witnessed during the copyright directive farce.
If we'd had more people on it, the outcome might have been different. We're not engaged enough; the campaign shouldn't end because the Commission got their way, it ends when they've been kicked into touch. When ACTA bit the dust, Karel de Gucht was reminded that Parliament appoints commissioners and can replace them. Assuming the case is the same, we need to engage more with our MEPs to remind them of that. It means we don't just contact them when we're not happy about a new law, we contact them regularly and encourage them to hold the Commissioners to account. That we don't is the problem.
Or that the legislation will be tabled during a time when the public has something else to be outraged or scared about.
I can see that, so we need to be talking to our MEPs to encourage them to ensure these things aren't sneaked through.
What I'm NOT assuming is that the new feudal overlors in the EU commission and bureaucracy will suddenly develop democratic values and a sense of reason and proportion.
Right behind them are the corporate puppetmasters ensuring their will is done. We need a public interest lobby to counter them. Two can play at that game, and they need to play it well.
Let's face it, even if Brexit is a shit-show, I'd lay good odds that thirty years from now the EU will have to use military force to keep half its members from seceding in disgust.
Brexit is being run by the most incompetent PM we've ever had, and May was a numbnut! I can't see where the EU is going to get this military force from when it's dominated by France and Germany and some of the bigger countries have ever-growing cadres of anti-EU factions. The EU is going to have to drop the federalism if it wants to survive long-term. During ACTA, the Poles were a major player in terms of getting it killed. Other members of former Soviet satellite states remember the oppression they suffered. That's what we leveraged to kill ACTA and it worked like a charm. As I've said before, when dealing with people you can't take a one-size-fits-all approach. Find out what button to press and jump on it. With former Soviet sattelite states, it's surveillance. With the Right-neoliberal types, it's The Market. With left-liberal types, it's fairness to workers and the vulnerable. Yes indeed, a full time public interest lobby is required to counter the corporate lobbies. Stat.
On the post: Germany's CDU, Angela Merkel's Party Of Fuddy-Duddies, Decides To Join The Cool Kids: Backs Open Standards, Open Source, Open Data, Open APIs -- Open Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pretty usual lies
Similar as in Sweden when Anna Troberg walked. We lose a LOT of very good people because Pirate Party men are trying to run the party in the same way the large incumbent parties do it and the type of women drawn to pirate politics aren't doormats who accept that.
Damn straight we're not. Anyone who's serious about running the party in such a way as to make it as appealing as possible to the greatest number of people while maintaining our principles needs to take a more realistic approach. Basically, lose the patriarchal attitudes and focus on inclusivity. I'm being put off by the anarchists who routinely insult people of faith in various online locations, as if we are so few in number that pushing us away won't matter in the long term. It totally will. Demagoguery over UBI and other pie-in-the-sky policies are also off-putting and will relegate us to the outer edges of political activity unless they focus on evidence-based policy-making instead.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Techxit
Yep.
On the post: Germany's CDU, Angela Merkel's Party Of Fuddy-Duddies, Decides To Join The Cool Kids: Backs Open Standards, Open Source, Open Data, Open APIs -- Open Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pretty usual lies
Dang! I didn't know about that. Thank you for letting me know. Full story here.
You're right. The trouble is, the party is dominated by increasingly right wing libertarian-type men, i.e. they're not interested in women feeling safe around them. Julia is a big loss. I really liked her as a politician.
On the post: Senator Cantwell Releases Another Federal Privacy Law That Won't Go Anywhere And Doesn't Deal With Actual Issues
Re: Re:
We'll have to wait till McConnell is removed from office. He's awful.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techxit
You're assuming there won't be an ACTA-style public outcry, which is likely to happen in such an event.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about vetting search engines for defamation they allow to remain in their servers even after it's pointed out that it's defamatory?
The crap about me remained on their servers until it was taken down by the hosting sites and the Google cache cleared. "Pointing out" and proving defamation are different things, and laws vary from country to country. In America, I understand they vary from state to state. You're barking up the wrong tree. If a defamation is hosted anywhere, it's on the website on which the comments are published. Your best bet is to contact the website owners/mods with any evidence you have that the posts are incorrect or violate their TOS. When they're gone from the host they'll go from the search engines. Why? THIS IS HOW SEARCH ENGINES WORK! They index website content.
Some websites might not comply, but your own conduct should be proof enough of your innocence. It was in my case. I have ZERO black marks against my name because it's hard to take an hysterical anonymous troll seriously when he accuses you of a criminal offence yet does not report this to the authorities.
We've also had people who are NOT pedophiles falsely accused of pedophilia, harmed or even KILLED by "vigilantes" who find the lies on Google, we've had women targeted for revenge porn who can't sue the search engines in the US (the exception was a case where the RP site owner was involved in the upuloading), and we've had businesses suffer reputation blackmail with threats of spambots destroying them with false reviews that sites are immune from being sued over (so you can't trust any internet advertising).
Google is not the source of those lies. It's like suing the Government for building the road on which an assailant travelled or a car manufacturer for building the car. Go to the source and report. If they don't comply, you have the option to sue if you can afford it. I was polite and provided proof to all the website admins where the lies about me were hosted. Result: only one unreliable website hosts them. That website gave me the option to post a rebuttal linking to the evidence proving my accuser is a troll. Result: anyone clicking on that link sees my rebuttal. So I'm both accused and proven innocent every time someone clicks on the link.
Take away 230 protection and sites have to stand behind what appears on them, as they should.
Sites should not be obliged to police their users' behaviour, but I'm with you on enforcement of TOS. If a user violates TOS, report it. If they don't deal with it, at least leave a rebuttal so people can see both sides of the story. In my case it was [accusation] v [proof of troll activity]. No harm done to me.
Anyone who thinks someone being falsely accused of pedophilia (or a revenge porn victim, etc.) is an "acceptable loss" is not worth much in this debate.
Give the farmer back his straw. Nobody is saying that. You are arguing in bad faith if you insist that people who disagree with you are in favour of malfeasance. We're not. You're using the wrong tool for the job. You refuse to acknowledge that I myself was subject to false allegations. Had I lost my job over it, would I have blamed anyone but the troll? No. The troll alone is responsible for his behaviour.
Moderation at scale is quite possible if it's based on a notice-and-takedown scheme. Leaving people defenseless against a single internet 4Chan type with an axe to grind is not the answer.
Nobody is "defenseless" against the imaginary might of a 4Chan-type troll. In any case, the people attacked by vigilante mobs over accusations of kiddie fiddling (it happened over here in the UK) were victims of The Sun, a Murdoch gutter tabloid rag. It wasn't the internet, it was an irresponsible "newspaper." ::Spits::
People have a right to protect their good name.
You ain't gonna do that by turning the internet into an authoritarian dictatorship, bub.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ah to be a fly on that wall...
4th Insightful vote. You're like the Girl with the Curl, man! When you are good you are very very good.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re:
Eh, more of a butthurt money troll. Remember when Prenda went after business based on accessibility? Same idea, but this time it's about suing search engines because some creep posted some horrible comments somewhere.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL!
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're both right.
The Twitterverse is speculating that he's doing it because if Warren gets in, she'll implement a wealth tax and he's having none of it.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re:
Ahhh! You were doing so well, btr1701. I gave you your third Insightful vote for the comment above this but now... no. Bad btr1701.
First of all, where there is wisdom in a foreign law, why not implement it IF it doesn't conflict with the Constitution?
Secondly, "old crone?" No need to be ageist and sexist, mate. Not okay. Your right wing knuckledragger slip is showing.
Thirdly, foreigners actually do make law for the United States via free trade agreements, as we are constantly reminded right here on TD. When Congress passes them into law, they cite "our international obligations" as the reason for doing so. Copyright law is a classic example thereof.
Take your right wing blinkers off, they're stopping you from seeing the truth.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re: Techxit
Enjoy your second Insightful vote from me. You're right. Again.
On the post: Germany's CDU, Angela Merkel's Party Of Fuddy-Duddies, Decides To Join The Cool Kids: Backs Open Standards, Open Source, Open Data, Open APIs -- Open Everything
Re: Re: Pretty usual lies
They've got the excellent Julia Reda as an MEP. It'd be great to have Pirates in government. Can you imagine the good they would do?
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Ah to be a fly on that wall...
That is nonsense, Jhon. Search engines can't control people's posting habits, they can only try to clean up after the fact. Your ignorance of how indexing works is not my problem and it shouldn't be anyone's.
Remember, delisting the link doesn't mean the comment can't be found, it's just harder to find. Anyone who has the link and posts it again, or takes a screenshot and therefore changes the link, gets it re-listed automatically. No one could afford to hire the number of butthurt monitors required to make your mad idea work.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Yet another round of 'nerd harder'
^This. Moderation at scale is hard. It's difficult enough to get the most egregious content delisted, but to police our speech in case it causes offence? I routinely slag off politicians because I think they're doing a lousy job. If such a law were passed and someone complained, my blog would be shuttered. We've already had police that the door of a blogger for complaining about UKIP on his blog.
Unless we're all happy to live in a totalitarian dystopia in which only Teletubbies-level conversation is acceptable, I say we should nip this censorial crap in the bud and push back against such laws. Hard. Law-making should be based on evidence, not knee-jerk reactions to the worst case scenarios.
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re: Re:
And anyone who was reported to anything for behaving badly would have that speech silenced. Results: all sorts of bad behaviour going unchecked and unchallenged.
We've already had convicted paedophiles try to get search results removed because they contained details of their criminal convictions. Do you really want no way of vetting people for criminal activity?
Now imagine the impact on newspapers and other media outlets. They would lose access to the internet as their reports would be suppressed from the search results. That's what you want, Jhon, isn't it?
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: Re:
Precisely.
Next >>