"I think they are slightly beyond the white supremacist label, they are willing to accept anyone who espouses the same "ideals" no matter their skin tone"
That's a stretch.
The more likely explanation is that while they're generally not the sharpest tools in the shed, even they understand that you can't be openly racist in today's climate like you could in the 50s. So, they allow a few people within their ranks who would normally be the target of their hatred, so that when they get called out for more obvious activities they can pull out the "we can't be racist, we have black/latino friends!" card. What they do privately when their token members' backs are turned is probably somewhat different to their public facing statements.
There were jews within the Nazi party in Germany in the 1940s. Their presence didn't mean that you couldn't look at their other activities and still conclude that they were Nazis.
Generally speaking, Firefox was the catalyst to get people away from IE and to force MS to start improving IE after they claimed that IE6 would be the last standalone browser they offered, but once mobile became king it's all about Chromium and Safari based browsers.
Of course not. Facts are available elsewhere if you want to look for them, they might not be on Murdoch approved outlets but there's plenty of options.
"The video I watched of that exchange showed excessive force"
I love the fact that you think this somehow counts as a retort against the points being made.
"Instead, Fauci lied to the public and told them masks weren't necessary"
Did he lie? There still doesn't seem to be reliable evidence that N95s specifically are necessary. They would have been the ideal, but given that other types of face coverings were recommended and the area I live had way lower infection rates than the places I've seen where people were trying to oppose any type of mask, I don't think he was wrong.
...and apart from the fact that you can't spell his name correctly, it would be a bad thing if he were to be held in jail for stating factual information. Which is why, in case you didn't notice, everyone apart from the Democratic Senator referenced is opposing this. Weird how things work when you don't pretend politics is a team sport, huh?
"Why would he bring in anyone else when copyright's exclusive purpose is to maximize profits for large corporations?"
Well, in theory copyright is for everyone. For example, there's a few high profile movies that "borrowed" ideas from existing movies or other media where small players got their ideas clearly ripped off by Hollywood productions and were compensated afterwards (a good example is Michael Bay's movie The Island). This would not be possible if copyright did not exist.
The current form of copyright, especially in terms of its restrictions and how its enforced, is very much created to the needs of corporations, but a world without any copyright at all would not be any prettier.
"When you say "private corporations are inherently amoral", you are painting with an extremely broad brush. In 2020 there were approximately 7 million private corporations in the US alone."
I'll take a wild guess that he was referring to major corporation and not LLCs that are set up for smaller businesses. But, isn't the point of an LLC to shield the proprietor from direct legal responsibility for certain things if they go wrong? That does seem at least open to abuse even if not every person abuses it.
"Do you think when people cooperate they suddenly and magically become amoral?"
Again, a guess. But when there's a conflict between moral actions on a personal level and profit, it does seem that a great many corporations go for the profit.
"Attempts to regulate particular industries are virtually always captured by the regulated industry"
Which is of course why, for example, ISPs that are regulated in Europe always have the same problem with local monopolies writing the laws that cause so many consumers in the US to have little choice in the market that's regulated, since they're both regulated. Wait... that's not true at all...
There's some rather different and sometimes complex issues at play.
"Hundreds of millions of people are effected by this every day in the US.
At what point is destroying the livelyhoods of millions the least worst option?"
I'm not sure what your point is here. There's a lot of people with inferior internet access, but literally blocking entire cities and states from accessing the internet as ECA suggested is obviously not the answer.
"Also, congratulations on not being negatively effected, as far as you know."
I don't live in the US but I know that I'm subjected to a market that has the results of the effective and widespread regulation that's being opposed in the US.
"I repeat: a lot of traffic numbers are garbage and no one knows anything!"
For one, I know that I've probably accessed the site a bunch with either my work VPN activated (which should normally show Germany but I've noticed that occasionally it shows as the Netherlands or other EU countries since we switched provider a few months ago), or when I've used one to bypass certain content regional restrictions (UK/US to access sites I pay for that don't service me in Spain without such things).
"Now, the oddest one of all: the 7th ranking story, the Neighbors are Watching Via Surveillance Video... is from 2003"
If I had to guess, I'd say that it an unfortunately evergreen topic where the headline is vague enough to be able to fit any relevant trending topic today and general SEO would attract traffic fairly consistently when searching the generic terms.
"Once again, we see little overlap between the stories that get the most traffic and those that get the most comments, which always strikes me as worth noting (people always assume otherwise)."
I think there's just a difference between the way people interact with the articles. Articles that are linked from elsewhere often have discussions going on in those other places, or have the articles cited as part of another argument not directly inspired here, but people will check out the original source linked. Whereas sometimes, we all know we're guilty of arguing with trolls and/or among ourselves on articles that may or may not have wider appeal outside of that specific argument among those who have already commented/subscribed to the conversation.
Who's claiming everyone already has it? Usually I can tell where you idiots are getting your talking points from but that's the first time I've heard anyone claim that.
Hey, at least your off-topic drooling isn't just a regurgitation of stuff that was debunked a year ago, which is an improvement I guess.
If you're going to start shooting people over copyright law, I dare say you lost whatever argument you're having even if you're on the correct side of the fence.
"The secrity community is bigger than whichever guy you decided is aligned with the MPAA or whatever."
It is, but when their conclusions fit with the narrative that's been spouted for clear profit and control motives, I get suspicious.
"And the complete inability to choose a trustworthy VPN also"
This is of course, also an issue. But, it's easier to get someone to use a trustworthy provider than it is to get them to set up their own, troubleshoot any problems that might arise, etc.
"And yet, you think they could choose a trustworthy VPN by any method other than random chance."
No, but I think that they're way more likely to be sent down the correct route than they would be to be able to set something up on their own. There's no perfect solution, my point is simply that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that telling people to set up their own VPN is remotely realistic.
"No one is trying to pry a VPN out of your cold, dead hands, man"
Tell that to the politicians attempting to outlaw such services.
"For that, you can blame shit companies like Disney, Amazon, and too many to name here who outright block them from granting access to their sites."
There's multiple uses for VPNs, one of which is to bypass geographical restrictions on content. While I despite such things and believe that they're a direct result of a massively outdated business model that dates back to a time when natural physical restrictions caused international licensing to develop in a certain way that has no place online, I don't necessarily fault sites for trying to block access to 3rd party content where such access may technically be in violation of said licences. They can go screw themselves when it's their own original content and they're introducing artificial restrictions themselves, but I can understand it when, say, Amazon has the non-US streaming rights for Picard and they might stand to lose that if they don't block access from Americans trying to bypass CBS's condition that Americans subscribe to CBS's streaming platform.
"I still use a VPN, but my options grow limited by the day."
I do wonder what options you're referring to. If it's the above problem with accessing streaming content, it's fairly trivial to disable your VPN for that specific usage.
"Fuck these companies for taking away my ability to use the internet safely while they convert me into a product."
You still have that ability, and it's a real problem if you pay for both the VPN and the things you're trying to access. But, as the saying goes, if you're not paying for one or all of the things you're trying to use, you are the product. Switch to using things where that's not true if that bothers you (although, with modern business practices who knows?)
"Hint just because the government demands that records are kept does not mean that they are looked at or searched"
It also doesn't mean they won't be, and certainly doesn't mean that if they're searched that only those people legally authorised to search will do so. Take some time here to read up about government databases that have been compromised and law enforcement agencies using the presence of a cache of data to go on an unauthorised fishing trip if you don't understand the concerns here.
I'd argue that they are still very much necessary, just not for the same reasons. It ultimately comes does to who you trust, and just because you can trust the site you're going to visit to give you a more secure connection than you has before, that doesn't mean you should blindly trust everyone else involved in that transaction.
L: But, it's proven to work in almost every other developed country!
R: Here's some reasons as to why that's not possible here (cue litany of excuses often rooted in suspicious obsessions with things like homogenised populations and talk of distances that aren't any different in the most populated parts of the country compared to elsewhere)
"If poor people commit 99% of crimes and the wealthy perform 1% of crimes that's not a valid comparison."
Especially when you consider the relationship between each other. Maybe there's a causal effect between the white collar criminals who tanked the global economy and the rise in criminal activity among the newly destitute population? But, apparently you can't afford to give the latter a safety net because you forgot to prosecute the last group of ponzi scheme artists...
"Back in 2016 the FCC eyed the voluntary requirement that broadband providers be required to provide a sort of "nutrition label" for broadband. The idea was that this label would clearly disclose speeds, throttling, limitation, sneaky fees, and all the stuff big predatory ISPs like to bury in their fine print (if they disclose it at all)."
In reality, Tic Tacs are allowed to advertise themselves as sugar free in the US because even though the main ingredient is sugar, because each "serving" is so small it doesn't reach the threshold that makes that claim technically false under law. So, they can basically sell sugar pills claiming there's no sugar in them and they're not breaking any law.
I'd suggest not adopting a model that is already being widely abused in the industry you're trying to emulated, but obviously the people suggesting this have a historical reason to want to be the abusers.
"As in, it's maybe good to have more transparency into what you're buying, but its value is limited if you have no alternative ISPs to switch to"
I see the same faulty argument all the time in healthcare arguments. Sure, forcing providers to provide you a price list for an elective procedure you need might be a good thing. But, if all the cheap options are "out of network" or you need to be taken into hospital unconscious, it's next to useless and certainly not an alternative to healthcare reform that would ensure that people don't get a bill of any kind, as per many other countries. Yet, some people pretend that such a "free market" solution is a panacea for all of the ills facing them.
Making sure that ISPs are up front with their fees in ways in which they can be easily compared is a good thing, but it's not a replacement for ensuring that people have an actual choice to begin with. Again, like other countries - there are ISPs where I live that occasionally pull some shady tactics. But, if I see that with my own ISP, I have a multitude of options to switch to.
Re: Re: Ima let you finish after you answer a quick question.
You know the ones... I don't recall anyone being banned for claiming that lower taxes and regulation are the solution to everyone's problems even when the claim is laughably false. Other "conservative" ideals, however...
But, it's easier to claim you're being oppressed when Nazis are banned than it is to ponder on why you share so many political beliefs with Nazis.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
"I think they are slightly beyond the white supremacist label, they are willing to accept anyone who espouses the same "ideals" no matter their skin tone"
That's a stretch.
The more likely explanation is that while they're generally not the sharpest tools in the shed, even they understand that you can't be openly racist in today's climate like you could in the 50s. So, they allow a few people within their ranks who would normally be the target of their hatred, so that when they get called out for more obvious activities they can pull out the "we can't be racist, we have black/latino friends!" card. What they do privately when their token members' backs are turned is probably somewhat different to their public facing statements.
There were jews within the Nazi party in Germany in the 1940s. Their presence didn't mean that you couldn't look at their other activities and still conclude that they were Nazis.
On the post: Techdirt 2021: The Stats.
Re:
Generally speaking, Firefox was the catalyst to get people away from IE and to force MS to start improving IE after they claimed that IE6 would be the last standalone browser they offered, but once mobile became king it's all about Chromium and Safari based browsers.
On the post: Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you're innocent, why run? -- Police!
"I’m not clicking on a guardian link"
Of course not. Facts are available elsewhere if you want to look for them, they might not be on Murdoch approved outlets but there's plenty of options.
"The video I watched of that exchange showed excessive force"
I love the fact that you think this somehow counts as a retort against the points being made.
On the post: NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But where was the lie? N95s would have been ideal, but did Fauci lie when he said they weren't absolutely necessary?
On the post: NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas
Re: Re: Re:
"Instead, Fauci lied to the public and told them masks weren't necessary"
Did he lie? There still doesn't seem to be reliable evidence that N95s specifically are necessary. They would have been the ideal, but given that other types of face coverings were recommended and the area I live had way lower infection rates than the places I've seen where people were trying to oppose any type of mask, I don't think he was wrong.
On the post: NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas
Re: Memo to Dems
...and apart from the fact that you can't spell his name correctly, it would be a bad thing if he were to be held in jail for stating factual information. Which is why, in case you didn't notice, everyone apart from the Democratic Senator referenced is opposing this. Weird how things work when you don't pretend politics is a team sport, huh?
On the post: Senator Tillis Holds Secret Meeting With IP Maximalists To Discuss A Single US 'IP' Agency
Re:
"Why would he bring in anyone else when copyright's exclusive purpose is to maximize profits for large corporations?"
Well, in theory copyright is for everyone. For example, there's a few high profile movies that "borrowed" ideas from existing movies or other media where small players got their ideas clearly ripped off by Hollywood productions and were compensated afterwards (a good example is Michael Bay's movie The Island). This would not be possible if copyright did not exist.
The current form of copyright, especially in terms of its restrictions and how its enforced, is very much created to the needs of corporations, but a world without any copyright at all would not be any prettier.
On the post: Top Disney Lawyer To Become Top Copyright Office Lawyer, Because Who Cares About The Public Interest?
Re: Re: Re: Re: same old song
"When you say "private corporations are inherently amoral", you are painting with an extremely broad brush. In 2020 there were approximately 7 million private corporations in the US alone."
I'll take a wild guess that he was referring to major corporation and not LLCs that are set up for smaller businesses. But, isn't the point of an LLC to shield the proprietor from direct legal responsibility for certain things if they go wrong? That does seem at least open to abuse even if not every person abuses it.
"Do you think when people cooperate they suddenly and magically become amoral?"
Again, a guess. But when there's a conflict between moral actions on a personal level and profit, it does seem that a great many corporations go for the profit.
"Attempts to regulate particular industries are virtually always captured by the regulated industry"
Which is of course why, for example, ISPs that are regulated in Europe always have the same problem with local monopolies writing the laws that cause so many consumers in the US to have little choice in the market that's regulated, since they're both regulated. Wait... that's not true at all...
There's some rather different and sometimes complex issues at play.
On the post: Shitty U.S. Broadband Maps Are A Feature, Not A Bug
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Hundreds of millions of people are effected by this every day in the US.
At what point is destroying the livelyhoods of millions the least worst option?"
I'm not sure what your point is here. There's a lot of people with inferior internet access, but literally blocking entire cities and states from accessing the internet as ECA suggested is obviously not the answer.
"Also, congratulations on not being negatively effected, as far as you know."
I don't live in the US but I know that I'm subjected to a market that has the results of the effective and widespread regulation that's being opposed in the US.
On the post: Techdirt 2021: The Stats.
"I repeat: a lot of traffic numbers are garbage and no one knows anything!"
For one, I know that I've probably accessed the site a bunch with either my work VPN activated (which should normally show Germany but I've noticed that occasionally it shows as the Netherlands or other EU countries since we switched provider a few months ago), or when I've used one to bypass certain content regional restrictions (UK/US to access sites I pay for that don't service me in Spain without such things).
"Now, the oddest one of all: the 7th ranking story, the Neighbors are Watching Via Surveillance Video... is from 2003"
If I had to guess, I'd say that it an unfortunately evergreen topic where the headline is vague enough to be able to fit any relevant trending topic today and general SEO would attract traffic fairly consistently when searching the generic terms.
"Once again, we see little overlap between the stories that get the most traffic and those that get the most comments, which always strikes me as worth noting (people always assume otherwise)."
I think there's just a difference between the way people interact with the articles. Articles that are linked from elsewhere often have discussions going on in those other places, or have the articles cited as part of another argument not directly inspired here, but people will check out the original source linked. Whereas sometimes, we all know we're guilty of arguing with trolls and/or among ourselves on articles that may or may not have wider appeal outside of that specific argument among those who have already commented/subscribed to the conversation.
On the post: Techdirt 2021: The Stats.
Hey, well thanks guys I'm glad I provided some value for all of you last year.
On the post: Court Orders Twitter Reveal Anonymous Tweeter Over Sketchy Copyright Claim, Because That Tweeter Won't Show Up In Court
Re: Friday deep thoughts
Who's claiming everyone already has it? Usually I can tell where you idiots are getting your talking points from but that's the first time I've heard anyone claim that.
Hey, at least your off-topic drooling isn't just a regurgitation of stuff that was debunked a year ago, which is an improvement I guess.
On the post: Top Disney Lawyer To Become Top Copyright Office Lawyer, Because Who Cares About The Public Interest?
Re: Re:
If you're going to start shooting people over copyright law, I dare say you lost whatever argument you're having even if you're on the correct side of the fence.
On the post: The VPN Is On Everybody's Shitlist After Years Of Scammy Providers And Empty Promises
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The secrity community is bigger than whichever guy you decided is aligned with the MPAA or whatever."
It is, but when their conclusions fit with the narrative that's been spouted for clear profit and control motives, I get suspicious.
"And the complete inability to choose a trustworthy VPN also"
This is of course, also an issue. But, it's easier to get someone to use a trustworthy provider than it is to get them to set up their own, troubleshoot any problems that might arise, etc.
"And yet, you think they could choose a trustworthy VPN by any method other than random chance."
No, but I think that they're way more likely to be sent down the correct route than they would be to be able to set something up on their own. There's no perfect solution, my point is simply that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that telling people to set up their own VPN is remotely realistic.
"No one is trying to pry a VPN out of your cold, dead hands, man"
Tell that to the politicians attempting to outlaw such services.
On the post: The VPN Is On Everybody's Shitlist After Years Of Scammy Providers And Empty Promises
Re:
"For that, you can blame shit companies like Disney, Amazon, and too many to name here who outright block them from granting access to their sites."
There's multiple uses for VPNs, one of which is to bypass geographical restrictions on content. While I despite such things and believe that they're a direct result of a massively outdated business model that dates back to a time when natural physical restrictions caused international licensing to develop in a certain way that has no place online, I don't necessarily fault sites for trying to block access to 3rd party content where such access may technically be in violation of said licences. They can go screw themselves when it's their own original content and they're introducing artificial restrictions themselves, but I can understand it when, say, Amazon has the non-US streaming rights for Picard and they might stand to lose that if they don't block access from Americans trying to bypass CBS's condition that Americans subscribe to CBS's streaming platform.
"I still use a VPN, but my options grow limited by the day."
I do wonder what options you're referring to. If it's the above problem with accessing streaming content, it's fairly trivial to disable your VPN for that specific usage.
"Fuck these companies for taking away my ability to use the internet safely while they convert me into a product."
You still have that ability, and it's a real problem if you pay for both the VPN and the things you're trying to access. But, as the saying goes, if you're not paying for one or all of the things you're trying to use, you are the product. Switch to using things where that's not true if that bothers you (although, with modern business practices who knows?)
On the post: The VPN Is On Everybody's Shitlist After Years Of Scammy Providers And Empty Promises
Re: Re:
"Hint just because the government demands that records are kept does not mean that they are looked at or searched"
It also doesn't mean they won't be, and certainly doesn't mean that if they're searched that only those people legally authorised to search will do so. Take some time here to read up about government databases that have been compromised and law enforcement agencies using the presence of a cache of data to go on an unauthorised fishing trip if you don't understand the concerns here.
On the post: The VPN Is On Everybody's Shitlist After Years Of Scammy Providers And Empty Promises
Re: Re:
"It just isn't ubiquitously necessary"
I'd argue that they are still very much necessary, just not for the same reasons. It ultimately comes does to who you trust, and just because you can trust the site you're going to visit to give you a more secure connection than you has before, that doesn't mean you should blindly trust everyone else involved in that transaction.
On the post: Baltimore Police Union Blames City's Murder Rate On Defunding Efforts That Never Happened
Re: Re: Re: unfortnately
It's the usual cycle.
The "left": we should do X
The "right": that's impossible
L: But, it's proven to work in almost every other developed country!
R: Here's some reasons as to why that's not possible here (cue litany of excuses often rooted in suspicious obsessions with things like homogenised populations and talk of distances that aren't any different in the most populated parts of the country compared to elsewhere)
"If poor people commit 99% of crimes and the wealthy perform 1% of crimes that's not a valid comparison."
Especially when you consider the relationship between each other. Maybe there's a causal effect between the white collar criminals who tanked the global economy and the rise in criminal activity among the newly destitute population? But, apparently you can't afford to give the latter a safety net because you forgot to prosecute the last group of ponzi scheme artists...
On the post: FCC Revisits Transparency 'Nutrition Label' For Broadband
"Back in 2016 the FCC eyed the voluntary requirement that broadband providers be required to provide a sort of "nutrition label" for broadband. The idea was that this label would clearly disclose speeds, throttling, limitation, sneaky fees, and all the stuff big predatory ISPs like to bury in their fine print (if they disclose it at all)."
In reality, Tic Tacs are allowed to advertise themselves as sugar free in the US because even though the main ingredient is sugar, because each "serving" is so small it doesn't reach the threshold that makes that claim technically false under law. So, they can basically sell sugar pills claiming there's no sugar in them and they're not breaking any law.
I'd suggest not adopting a model that is already being widely abused in the industry you're trying to emulated, but obviously the people suggesting this have a historical reason to want to be the abusers.
"As in, it's maybe good to have more transparency into what you're buying, but its value is limited if you have no alternative ISPs to switch to"
I see the same faulty argument all the time in healthcare arguments. Sure, forcing providers to provide you a price list for an elective procedure you need might be a good thing. But, if all the cheap options are "out of network" or you need to be taken into hospital unconscious, it's next to useless and certainly not an alternative to healthcare reform that would ensure that people don't get a bill of any kind, as per many other countries. Yet, some people pretend that such a "free market" solution is a panacea for all of the ills facing them.
Making sure that ISPs are up front with their fees in ways in which they can be easily compared is a good thing, but it's not a replacement for ensuring that people have an actual choice to begin with. Again, like other countries - there are ISPs where I live that occasionally pull some shady tactics. But, if I see that with my own ISP, I have a multitude of options to switch to.
On the post: Baltimore Police Union Blames City's Murder Rate On Defunding Efforts That Never Happened
Re: Re: Ima let you finish after you answer a quick question.
You know the ones... I don't recall anyone being banned for claiming that lower taxes and regulation are the solution to everyone's problems even when the claim is laughably false. Other "conservative" ideals, however...
But, it's easier to claim you're being oppressed when Nazis are banned than it is to ponder on why you share so many political beliefs with Nazis.
Next >>