It's human nature that if someone says "don't look!" then everyone will want to look. Not only did the authorities not realize this basic truth, but they didn't think to at least place a few decoys.
With the huge amount of money in politics, I'm sure that the major political parties conduct such wargame exercises behind the scenes. This might have been a fun event, but other people out there are getting paid to do this kind of work. Potential money making opportunity lost, perhaps, but at least you didn't have to sell your soul and become a political consultant to get a glimpse of what it was like.
An uptick in downloads of police scanner apps prompted the DHS to claim "well-coordinated groups" had "potentially compromised" law enforcement communications, ignoring the fact police scanners have been used by citizens for years to listen in on law enforcement activity. Snagging a publicly available signal doesn't "compromise" anything.
I'll bet that DHS is monitoring open communications over social media to gather intelligence on protesters. But as soon as someone listens back over the police scanners, suddenly it's a problem.
I'm getting vibes of the AT&T merger mania from a few years back. Big companies seem to think that if they create an empire, then they can't lose. But forcing consumers to use your product doesn't always end well.
You're making even less logical sense than normal. You're saying that it's easier to switch hardware than software?
Yes, that's my theory. People will give up hardware if they dont like it, BlackBerry for example, but they're totally addicted to the software. Most people stay with the compromised apps, even if they buy a new device, and even if they're told that the app is handing out their data.
So we ban TikTok, then what? Do we ban every single Chinese-made "smart" television in the country (TCL has a 16.5% market share)? Every single IOT device? Every crappy Chinese-made router? All global adtech? Because they're all technically threats.
There's a saying nowadays, that if the product is free, then YOU are the product. Hardware manufacturers have an inherent risk, in that if they allow their hardware to be deliberately compromised by state actors, then I can assure you that the imports will be stopped at the boarder, and their sales will plummet.
Not so with popular software apps. Despite Cambridge Analytica, tons of people still choose to use Facebook. Despite the poison and data breaches of social media, it still gets used constantly. You can shut down problematic hardware and exact a price for misbehavior. Not so with foreign software.
ICE considers every undocumented immigrant to be a criminal, which means the agency is going to use this software to track down people in the US for committing the civil violation of staying in the country without the proper paperwork.
8 U.S. Code ยง 1325 (a) does make it a criminal violation, potentially resulting in imprisonment of 6 to 24 months.
The First Amendment and Section 230 both exist to foster discourse. Discourse is more than just speech; it's the exchange of ideas. The First Amendment protects their expression, and Section 230 their distribution.
In recent court cases, big tech has been citing 230 in order to curtail discourse. With shadow bans, and demonetization, distribution is decreased, not protected.
But all that sharing would grind to a halt, if we could be held liable for anything allegedly wrong with that content. Not just civilly, but, as this case shows, even criminally.
Many content creators nowadays don't have to imagine it; they have been de-platformed due to cancel culture, even for perceived wrongs not performed on the platform. Section 230 does not assist the politically correct. Instead, it is used as a weapon.
Now, the show is on the other foot. Instead of Amazon being the big monopolist, it is Apple. And instead of the little guys conspiring to raise prices so that they can get more money, Epic is not raising consumer prices, and instead trying to make more money by asking the middleman to lower prices.
But the internet advertising ecosystem is fiendishly complex, and there are often many intermediaries between the advertiser itself, and the proprietor of the site the ad is displayed on.
If there are many layers, and dynamic advertisements, how can the proprietor know in advance what ad will be run, such that the proprietor will have a chance to approve or disapprove?
Similar to how it seems unreasonable for websites to preemptively police the user generated content, I doubt that policing dynamic advertisements would fare any better.
I would hope Clinesmith understood what he did wrong while he was doing it -- not just after being hit with a criminal complaint.
If he did understand that he was doing wrong at the time, that makes it even more disturbing to me. It indicates that there is a sense of impunity within the FBI, that they will never get caught, and never face punishment, so they are free to railroad a target. Never trust an FBI agent.
Certainly, consumers prefer low cost. But a low cost option that is proliferating because the alternatives are prohibitively high does not mean that the low cost option is popular. It just means that the alternatives are rubbish.
We obviously have no idea who the John Doe defendant is, but I wouldn't put it past Malibu Media to improperly serve the defendant, in the hopes that if noone receives the paperwork, then Malibu can pick up an easy default win. Who did they serve? Someone who moved out of an apartment? An out of business fast food restaurant that had wifi? Who knows!
While I don't think that this price decrease will work, because it's too little, too late, I do have to commend AMC for at least realizing that they have a problem. If you're selling something that fewer people want, then you need to lower the price. We saw this years back with the music industry as the landscape changed due to the internet. They should have lowered their prices in response to the reality, but did not, and instead allowed other outfits like Spotify and Apple music to steal the market.
Consumers have been upgrading their home theater equipment over the years, and so now it's become a preference over theaters, especially with the pandemic. But at least AMC got the message before they crash and burn, instead of after.
Granted if you've watched the history of U.S. media and telecom consolidation, this should surprise nobody
If you paid attention in economics, this should surprise nobody. This is the entire point behind mergers and consolidations. It removes competition, and allows for a single company to eliminate jobs with duplicate functions. Any judge who believed otherwise to approve the merger was a real dupe.
If they claim that there were policy violations, yet can't explain what the violations are, then it's not a policy violation. It's because they disagree. Their corporate advertisers hate when their copyright maximalist policies are ridiculed. Telecoms can't stand when their bogus fees and high price monopolies get exposed. And the sponsors grind their teeth at the mention of data breaches.
Good faith systems can explain what went wrong so that they can be fixed and remedied. This doesn't seem to be the case.
Chinese government got the camel's nose under the tent years back in Hong Kong, and today they're paying the price. With today's loss of freedom, I bet folks on Hong Kong wish they had nothing to do with China back in 99. Not getting started in the first place is a very smart policy.
No, no they were not. When people think of European fascists, they think of Hitler and Mussolini, both of whom were very hard right politically.
Quick history lesson: for the German variety, the very name stood for Nationalist SOCIALIST. In their 25 point plan, they included land expropriation, nationalization of certain industries, and expanded welfare. The economic policy was unquestionably leftist. Socialism was baked right into the name for a reason. They didn't include it at random.
As for the Italian variety, that was based on Giuseppe Gentile, who was a socialist, as was Mussolini.
Fascism is essentially a subset of totalitarianism,
Fascism is a mindset that can be completely devoid of government, and does not depend on totalinarianism. It can very well exist within mob rule and anarchy. Naturally, it becomes even more horrific if embraced by an organized government.
Mostly I mean people who donate to Democrats, and take payments from, and belong to left wing activist groups. They're free to do so, that's fine. But they don't get to disguise themselves as magically non-partisan or independent.
On the post: China's Efforts To Hide Its Muslim Concentration Camps Helped Reporters To Find Them
Human Nature
It's human nature that if someone says "don't look!" then everyone will want to look. Not only did the authorities not realize this basic truth, but they didn't think to at least place a few decoys.
On the post: We Ran Our Online Election Disinformation Simulation Game And There's Plenty To Be Worried About
Political Consultants
With the huge amount of money in politics, I'm sure that the major political parties conduct such wargame exercises behind the scenes. This might have been a fun event, but other people out there are getting paid to do this kind of work. Potential money making opportunity lost, perhaps, but at least you didn't have to sell your soul and become a political consultant to get a glimpse of what it was like.
On the post: California Fusion Center Tracked Anti-Police Protests, Sent Info To 14,000 Police Officers
I'll bet that DHS is monitoring open communications over social media to gather intelligence on protesters. But as soon as someone listens back over the police scanners, suddenly it's a problem.
On the post: Tone Deaf Facebook To Cripple VR Headsets Unless You Link It To Your Facebook Account
AT&T Model
I'm getting vibes of the AT&T merger mania from a few years back. Big companies seem to think that if they create an empire, then they can't lose. But forcing consumers to use your product doesn't always end well.
On the post: Tim Wu Joins The Ban TikTok Parade, Doesn't Clarify What The Ban Actually Accomplishes
Re: Re: Software vs Hardware
Yes, that's my theory. People will give up hardware if they dont like it, BlackBerry for example, but they're totally addicted to the software. Most people stay with the compromised apps, even if they buy a new device, and even if they're told that the app is handing out their data.
On the post: Tim Wu Joins The Ban TikTok Parade, Doesn't Clarify What The Ban Actually Accomplishes
Software vs Hardware
There's a saying nowadays, that if the product is free, then YOU are the product. Hardware manufacturers have an inherent risk, in that if they allow their hardware to be deliberately compromised by state actors, then I can assure you that the imports will be stopped at the boarder, and their sales will plummet.
Not so with popular software apps. Despite Cambridge Analytica, tons of people still choose to use Facebook. Despite the poison and data breaches of social media, it still gets used constantly. You can shut down problematic hardware and exact a price for misbehavior. Not so with foreign software.
On the post: Why Keep Section 230? Because People Need To Be Able To Complain About The Police
Re: Re: Meanwhile In Court
"When a commercial platform de facto replaces the public forum, then either free speech must be enforced on that forum or free speech dies."
On the post: Shitbirds Of A Feather Flock Together: ICE Signs $274,000 Contract With Clearview
8 U.S. Code ยง 1325 (a) does make it a criminal violation, potentially resulting in imprisonment of 6 to 24 months.
On the post: Why Keep Section 230? Because People Need To Be Able To Complain About The Police
Meanwhile In Court
In recent court cases, big tech has been citing 230 in order to curtail discourse. With shadow bans, and demonetization, distribution is decreased, not protected.
Many content creators nowadays don't have to imagine it; they have been de-platformed due to cancel culture, even for perceived wrongs not performed on the platform. Section 230 does not assist the politically correct. Instead, it is used as a weapon.
On the post: The Fortnite App Store Battle: A Real Antitrust Conundrum, Or Just A Carefully Planned Out Contract Negotiation?
Corporation vs Corporation
I remember an article from a couple years back:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120906/11274320303/judge-quickly-approves-ebook-pricing-se ttlement-says-its-public-interest-to-stop-price-fixing.shtml
Now, the show is on the other foot. Instead of Amazon being the big monopolist, it is Apple. And instead of the little guys conspiring to raise prices so that they can get more money, Epic is not raising consumer prices, and instead trying to make more money by asking the middleman to lower prices.
On the post: It Doesn't Make Sense To Treat Ads The Same As User Generated Content
Too Many Layer
If there are many layers, and dynamic advertisements, how can the proprietor know in advance what ad will be run, such that the proprietor will have a chance to approve or disapprove?
Similar to how it seems unreasonable for websites to preemptively police the user generated content, I doubt that policing dynamic advertisements would fare any better.
On the post: FBI Lawyer Criminally Charged For Lying To The FISA Court
If he did understand that he was doing wrong at the time, that makes it even more disturbing to me. It indicates that there is a sense of impunity within the FBI, that they will never get caught, and never face punishment, so they are free to railroad a target. Never trust an FBI agent.
On the post: Charter Spectrum Tells FCC Broadband Caps Are 'Popular' As It Tries To Kill Merger Conditions Preventing Them
Certainly, consumers prefer low cost. But a low cost option that is proliferating because the alternatives are prohibitively high does not mean that the low cost option is popular. It just means that the alternatives are rubbish.
On the post: Judge Denies Copyright Troll Malibu Media's Request For A Default Judgment
Service
We obviously have no idea who the John Doe defendant is, but I wouldn't put it past Malibu Media to improperly serve the defendant, in the hopes that if noone receives the paperwork, then Malibu can pick up an easy default win. Who did they serve? Someone who moved out of an apartment? An out of business fast food restaurant that had wifi? Who knows!
On the post: AMC Theaters: Risk Death And Disability To Watch Movie Reruns For 15 Cents!
Market Adjustment
While I don't think that this price decrease will work, because it's too little, too late, I do have to commend AMC for at least realizing that they have a problem. If you're selling something that fewer people want, then you need to lower the price. We saw this years back with the music industry as the landscape changed due to the internet. They should have lowered their prices in response to the reality, but did not, and instead allowed other outfits like Spotify and Apple music to steal the market.
Consumers have been upgrading their home theater equipment over the years, and so now it's become a preference over theaters, especially with the pandemic. But at least AMC got the message before they crash and burn, instead of after.
On the post: AT&T Fires Hundreds Of DC, HBO Execs In Latest Example Of 'Merger Synergies'
Basic Economics
If you paid attention in economics, this should surprise nobody. This is the entire point behind mergers and consolidations. It removes competition, and allows for a single company to eliminate jobs with duplicate functions. Any judge who believed otherwise to approve the merger was a real dupe.
On the post: Why Are There Currently No Ads On Techdirt? Apparently Google Thinks We're Dangerous
If they claim that there were policy violations, yet can't explain what the violations are, then it's not a policy violation. It's because they disagree. Their corporate advertisers hate when their copyright maximalist policies are ridiculed. Telecoms can't stand when their bogus fees and high price monopolies get exposed. And the sponsors grind their teeth at the mention of data breaches.
Good faith systems can explain what went wrong so that they can be fixed and remedied. This doesn't seem to be the case.
On the post: The Idea That Banning TikTok Thwarts Chinese Intelligence In Any Way Is Ridiculous
Gradualism
Chinese government got the camel's nose under the tent years back in Hong Kong, and today they're paying the price. With today's loss of freedom, I bet folks on Hong Kong wish they had nothing to do with China back in 99. Not getting started in the first place is a very smart policy.
On the post: Yes, Facebook Treats Trump Fans Differently: It Has Relaxed The Rules To Give Them More Leeway
Re: Re: Re:
Quick history lesson: for the German variety, the very name stood for Nationalist SOCIALIST. In their 25 point plan, they included land expropriation, nationalization of certain industries, and expanded welfare. The economic policy was unquestionably leftist. Socialism was baked right into the name for a reason. They didn't include it at random.
As for the Italian variety, that was based on Giuseppe Gentile, who was a socialist, as was Mussolini.
Fascism is a mindset that can be completely devoid of government, and does not depend on totalinarianism. It can very well exist within mob rule and anarchy. Naturally, it becomes even more horrific if embraced by an organized government.
On the post: Yes, Facebook Treats Trump Fans Differently: It Has Relaxed The Rules To Give Them More Leeway
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mostly I mean people who donate to Democrats, and take payments from, and belong to left wing activist groups. They're free to do so, that's fine. But they don't get to disguise themselves as magically non-partisan or independent.
Next >>