Re: Re: Re: Re: They would be forced to give something in return for nothing.
I really don't think Java was ever used so much, definitely not to the extent of underpinning sites and browsers. Since way back, until today, there have been requests to install a particular version or enable Java to use some odd Java item i decided to use, and it is pretty rare.
Re-reading your post, i am guessing you are talking about Javascript, which has nothing to do at all with Java or virtual machines, and lolno is not secure. Netscape developed it after they re-wrote Mosaic to make a commercial web browser. (They did use Java in the browser but i don't recall java applets making up much advertising and certainly not general web page rendering. A site that ran entirely in a jvm, it think, would be far more rare than say, the dumber and far worse all-Flash sites. If you want to talk about a horribly insecure, tracky, and much abused technology...)
Are you claiming the advertising industry would disappear without cookies or other tracking?
Advertising money will circulate no matter what. If they are limited to plain old fashioned advertising, the advertising economy will adjust. Companies have always, massive tracking or none at all, been paying advertisers largely for nothing. And in a world with an internet through which you can search for things you might want, you can find options of which you had never heard, and do a much better job than any advertiser, ever.
If post-tracking ban, advertisers really want to charge less for their services and pay less for sites to host ads, or sell more ads, that's pretty much on them. They would be paying a lot less without all the tracking stuff they felt they had to do to keep up with other outfits.
Of course, ad-supported sites wouldn't have it so bad if the hosting (somewhat) and business-class ISP costs were not a few magnitudes of order out of whack with reality. Maybe they would have to adjust too.
But i can count on one hand the number of times i have ever clicked an ad out of interest, static or targeted. Ads suck, and they always will. The entire industry is built on a belief system more than reality, and they probably pretty much know that deep down, as evidenced by what their data tells them.
The thing is, ads do not have to involve tracking. If the playing field is leveled to "place your ad or don't", that would make all ad displays equal anyway, although it might be super sad for some collect 'em all data-driven industry "innovators". Really it could free the ad industry from another cost without actually proven benefits. But sure, try to take that kind of snooping and control from some, and they will always whine, regardless as to whether it does them or their bottom line any good.
Do relevant markets and nuance mean nothing? The words in all the articles... are they just there for filler, as a long way of saying x sucks, or are they maybe describing relative merits of certain particular situations?
Also. Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced. (But some call him... Tim?)
Yeah, no. Actually this makes me question the longish post i just wrote, for length and lucidity.
Seriously, i, or someone else, might even agree with some point you may be making, if that is what you are doing, but we wouldn't know it.
Who the hell do you think might email you, and where would they get your address? And do you imagine the pleading (with the way-diluted by this point exclamation marks) would stop them if they have your address and want to mail you?
If you mean "free speech" wrt paid speakers, you'd get a lot less protest if they just want to come and speak minus the fanfare and cash. Protest, however, is also speech.
Not that people or crowds or institutions don't do things wrong. Usually there is someone doing something wrong from every angle, just as there are those from every angle who deal fairly.
Universities need to stop with the free speech zoning, as well as paying for invited speakers who are mostly about fomenting political-only nonsense, whether the uni or some officially recognized campus org invites them. (I wonder what is the percentage of "controversial" speakers who are not going to say anything new to anyone, including themselves, but are invited simply for point-scoring.) Just show up and speak if it is so damn important. And live with counter-speech. If you can't do that, there are thousands of preacher-type nuts who can teach you about ignoring crowds (not just their questions) and shouting over them. Same for the speech-suppressing types. (Although i see lots of claims to suppression which are nothing of the sort.)
Free speech doesn't mean that anyone owes you a living off of it, nor does it mean you can throw rocks.
(@ Padpaw - Given what i understand from my reading of your posts over time, i assume i largely agree with you, it's just that different people could say what you just said and mean wildly different things depending on how they define their terms and how equally they apply them to different parties.)
Open access is nice, but they should charge the fk out of the big incumbents for initial connection, seeing as they have been subsidized relentlessly since the beginning, and have done nothing. That will help with low income subscribers.
I would agree that the "new IT" is not run by classical sysops, much to their detriment. But none of them ever had to police individual-created content at any such scale. No one can, and it is very arguable that no one should, do that. This has nothing to do with what their systems are doing. Bots and spam are hardly the issues in question (but yes they could do better with those sometimes).
I have never been overly fond of most of the platforms in question, but not policing user content is so far at the bottom of my list of reasons (and mere preferences) that it fell off before it was ever on the list.
I can get 2 different translations from teh Goog, depending on how i do it. Translation machines are a hoot. Originally it was "bite me", immediately translated back, "bit me". I did not sort though other possibilities to see if any "worked better".
It's probably a good thing that Israel is not an island in the Philippines.
Re: Re: "simply because bad people may be using them in bad ways" -- No other reason, then.
Come on, now. Neither self-prostitution nor sex trafficking existed before the internet. Pff, thousands of years. Google invented it as a profit center.
The real problem with Shafer: He failed to be a hardcore criminal and did everything backwards. One is supposed to start out hurting or killing people, maybe trafficking drugs or something. Then they recruit you as an informant. Now you have impunity for pretty much anything, and get paid well for the next twenty years or so while you hand them useless or made up information when they come asking.
On the post: European Parliament Agrees Text For Key ePrivacy Regulation; Online Advertising Industry Hates It
Re: Re: Re: Re: They would be forced to give something in return for nothing.
Re-reading your post, i am guessing you are talking about Javascript, which has nothing to do at all with Java or virtual machines, and lolno is not secure. Netscape developed it after they re-wrote Mosaic to make a commercial web browser. (They did use Java in the browser but i don't recall java applets making up much advertising and certainly not general web page rendering. A site that ran entirely in a jvm, it think, would be far more rare than say, the dumber and far worse all-Flash sites. If you want to talk about a horribly insecure, tracky, and much abused technology...)
On the post: European Parliament Agrees Text For Key ePrivacy Regulation; Online Advertising Industry Hates It
Re: Unintended consequences
Advertising money will circulate no matter what. If they are limited to plain old fashioned advertising, the advertising economy will adjust. Companies have always, massive tracking or none at all, been paying advertisers largely for nothing. And in a world with an internet through which you can search for things you might want, you can find options of which you had never heard, and do a much better job than any advertiser, ever.
If post-tracking ban, advertisers really want to charge less for their services and pay less for sites to host ads, or sell more ads, that's pretty much on them. They would be paying a lot less without all the tracking stuff they felt they had to do to keep up with other outfits.
Of course, ad-supported sites wouldn't have it so bad if the hosting (somewhat) and business-class ISP costs were not a few magnitudes of order out of whack with reality. Maybe they would have to adjust too.
But i can count on one hand the number of times i have ever clicked an ad out of interest, static or targeted. Ads suck, and they always will. The entire industry is built on a belief system more than reality, and they probably pretty much know that deep down, as evidenced by what their data tells them.
On the post: European Parliament Agrees Text For Key ePrivacy Regulation; Online Advertising Industry Hates It
Re: Re: Ah, but you have a choice
On the post: BlackBerry CEO Promises To Try To Break Customers' Encryption If The US Gov't Asks Him To
Re: Do not trust
On the post: BlackBerry CEO Promises To Try To Break Customers' Encryption If The US Gov't Asks Him To
Re:
On the post: Marketing Guy: Google Image Search Is A Honeypot Set Up By Aggressive Copyright Litigants
Re: I just don't get it TechDirt
Do relevant markets and nuance mean nothing? The words in all the articles... are they just there for filler, as a long way of saying x sucks, or are they maybe describing relative merits of certain particular situations?
Also. Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced. (But some call him... Tim?)
On the post: NY Times Uncritically Says Fake News Debate Supports Chinese Style Censorship
Re: Let me know when people are held accountable
On the post: NY Times Uncritically Says Fake News Debate Supports Chinese Style Censorship
Re: Re: Re: MR. PHEWTUS AND FAUX NEWS
Seriously, i, or someone else, might even agree with some point you may be making, if that is what you are doing, but we wouldn't know it.
Who the hell do you think might email you, and where would they get your address? And do you imagine the pleading (with the way-diluted by this point exclamation marks) would stop them if they have your address and want to mail you?
On the post: NY Times Uncritically Says Fake News Debate Supports Chinese Style Censorship
Re:
Not that people or crowds or institutions don't do things wrong. Usually there is someone doing something wrong from every angle, just as there are those from every angle who deal fairly.
Universities need to stop with the free speech zoning, as well as paying for invited speakers who are mostly about fomenting political-only nonsense, whether the uni or some officially recognized campus org invites them. (I wonder what is the percentage of "controversial" speakers who are not going to say anything new to anyone, including themselves, but are invited simply for point-scoring.) Just show up and speak if it is so damn important. And live with counter-speech. If you can't do that, there are thousands of preacher-type nuts who can teach you about ignoring crowds (not just their questions) and shouting over them. Same for the speech-suppressing types. (Although i see lots of claims to suppression which are nothing of the sort.)
Free speech doesn't mean that anyone owes you a living off of it, nor does it mean you can throw rocks.
(@ Padpaw - Given what i understand from my reading of your posts over time, i assume i largely agree with you, it's just that different people could say what you just said and mean wildly different things depending on how they define their terms and how equally they apply them to different parties.)
On the post: NY Times Uncritically Says Fake News Debate Supports Chinese Style Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Fake news is not the Truth. -- You echoed the Trump-Russia lies for months.
On the post: San Francisco, Seattle Tire of Comcast, Mull Building Citywide Fiber Networks
On the post: Forcing Internet Platforms To Police Content Will Never Work
Re: If they can't manage their platforms...
I would agree that the "new IT" is not run by classical sysops, much to their detriment. But none of them ever had to police individual-created content at any such scale. No one can, and it is very arguable that no one should, do that. This has nothing to do with what their systems are doing. Bots and spam are hardly the issues in question (but yes they could do better with those sometimes).
I have never been overly fond of most of the platforms in question, but not policing user content is so far at the bottom of my list of reasons (and mere preferences) that it fell off before it was ever on the list.
On the post: Facebook Translate Error Lands Palestinian Man In Israeli Detention
Re: So...
It's probably a good thing that Israel is not an island in the Philippines.
On the post: Gab Drops Its Lawsuit Against Google; Considers Trying Its Hand At Lobbying
On the post: Copyright Office Will Renew Previous DMCA Exemptions Without Much Fuss -- But Why Is This Even Necessary?
Re: Re: Why is this bad?
I don't know if it would actually get better or they would just take the opportunity to make things worse for X. Citizen as usual.
On the post: Copyright Office Will Renew Previous DMCA Exemptions Without Much Fuss -- But Why Is This Even Necessary?
Re: Why is this bad?
On the post: Police Camera Study Shows New Tech Having Little Effect On Misconduct And Excessive Force
Re: Re: Re: Gravatar?
On the post: Study On Craigslist Shutting 'Erotic Services' Shows SESTA May Hurt Those It Purports To Help
Re: Re: "simply because bad people may be using them in bad ways" -- No other reason, then.
On the post: The DOJ's Bizarre Subpoena Over An Emoji Highlights Its Ridiculous Vendetta Against A Security Researcher
Duhhhh, Shafer. (facepalm)
On the post: Facebook Translate Error Lands Palestinian Man In Israeli Detention
Next >>