So, facebook came under a bit of fire because of misinformation spread by Russian-government-backed outfits, including those based in the Ukraine, which were intended to influence an election. Interviews with people on the street suggest that misinformation did in fact make it to voters.
As your statements readily admit at least some of the content is misinformation, from a Ukrainian outfit that appears designed to conceal its origin from general voters and spread misinformation ahead of another election.
And regardless of your opinions on immigration, the image used by the Russian-government-backed IRA and repurposed by the Ukrainan account here sets up a false dichotomy designed to inflame political tensions to influence voters, polarize politicians and deadlock the US politically to neuter our power on the world stage. I'd think that Russian propaganda designed to make America Putin's bitch would be an issue for conservatives, but apparently not.
The issue is that while they express opinions you agree with on illegal immigration, they also are spreading false information. The goal is that you follow them, agreeing with the opinions expressed, and then buy into the lies and misinformation that come along with it.** We see, in general, lies and disinformation as detrimental to our Democracy, but tolerate some level of this as a part of our interest in free speech. But when foreign entities utilize lies and disinformation in connection with elections we see that as a line too far. Facebook is only doing what our elected officials, on both sides, have asked them to do.
**As an allegory for how this works: Its not unlike how Jordan Peterson gained a following that express his political beliefs. He provided basic self help advice which helped a number of people. When he later expressed political beliefs either directly or indirectly, his followers than associated those political beliefs with the proven advice Jordan Peterson gave.
As argued by Techdirt repeatedly when these things come up, transparency into the algorithms would be good. The statement was to note that Amazon was not in fact pushing it's own knock off Over Allbirds. There is the question of if they are choosing to intentionally downrank allbirds, but that claim can't really be addressed by your findings.
The assumption would be that people looking for allbirds on Amazon primarily purchase lower cost knock-offs than the genuine article, pushing the Allbird's result lower. Its the self-reinforcing issue that can also be questioned with any search algorithm that learns and can be trained.
Re: Are you getting paid for endorsing crappy knock-offs?
Are you getting paid for endorsing crappy knock-offs?
I saw no endorsement of wither shoe. Mike made a reference to the general reputation of Allbirds, not his own personal opinion, and claims about the features generally valued by customers that are not present in the Amazon knock off. In no place did he express an opinion endorsing either shoe, particularly the Amazon shoe.
Or is this just your elliptical shot at copyright / patents. -- There is NO similarity between generally copying a physical product and EXACT copying of intellectual works. Period.
How convenient. If you had the capacity to comprehend what you've read, you'd know that Mike expressed the same position - Copyright should not be involved in this case.
Re: If only 'peace officers' were required to know the law
"Right to work" does not mean "Employers have to go through hoops to fire you". It is not a contrast to "At will employment".
At will employment means there are no employment protections in your employment contract, and that as long as you aren't fired for explicitly illegal reasons, there is no need an employer let you go 'For cause'. All states in the US are at will employment states, though some states recognise some exceptions.
"Right to work" states bar employers from requiring you be a part of a union, and therefore bar Unions from requiring employees be members. Nothing about right to work requires an employer to document 'cause' to fire you. In fact, right to work makes it more likely you won't be covered by the biggest reason they might not be able to fire you: A bargaining agreement with a union.
Please stop conflating At-Will employment and Right to Work laws. They aren't comparable situations, they aren't mutually exclusive, and nothing you said makes any sense when you know what they are.
On more than one occasion he has claimed he has had to submit a comment 10+ times before it wasn't 'held for moderation'. And he wonders why he his posts are considered spam.
That said, the money DirecTV is currently making is helping to pay off the company's enormous debt load (AT&T's currently in the running for the most heavily-indebted company public letter wasn't kind to AT&T.
Feels like something got cut out of the middle of this.
Also not true. Generally, yes, but he can be overridden by Congress or the agencies they grant such power to. I guarantee you that he doesn't sit in his office with a stamp and stamp every single piece of government documentation as either classified or unclassified.
Congress has no power over the power of classification. That is entirely an executive branch power, a program created by executive order under the power of the executive to protect national security. The executive grants the power to classify material to agencies, not Congress. The power is limited by the Judiciary, not congress.
More telling is the assumption that it was declassification that was the misconduct, rather than say a promise to utilize surveillance powers to investigate US citizens of interest to a foreign government in violation of the law. The AC is already narrowing the window on what The accusation is.
I'd imagine he would get the same protections as in Russia. However, his presence in Russia is often used as a weapon against him, and I am sure he expects his asylum in Russia is based mostly in his value as a tool for the Russian Government. I don't expect he could travel outside france, he might have an easier time communicating with people, connecting with them, when they can come to him and meet him in person, as opposed to a video call. Right now he is limited in his movements, and travel to russia isn't easy. Americans can easily travel to France, as could other europeans, without applying for a travel visa. This would allow for more personable communication.
Well, you might note your link notes that entry 3 is usually offensive. It is considered offensive because it equates mental retardation with general stupidity. It was using the term for one afflicted with mental retardation to insult someone without mental retardation, thereby insulting those with mental retardation.
Form 1 generally applies to objects, as the application of the word retard to people is either in form 2 as a slur, or as an insult in form 3 reinforcing the idea that form 2 is a slur.
The government is not the biggest impediment to Comcast, TMC, Et al, from competing. Its infrastructure. Specifically, privately owed fiber that delivers internet and TV service in most areas. Direct TV and Dish (when they were both independent) competed with each other and competed with the local wireline networks. But wireline networks are expensive, and overbuilding to produce competition does not improve the market the way a new burger joint might.
Your use of Deep State to describe Snowden is particularly confusing. The 'Deep State', in so far as I understand the claim, are appointed, unelected lifelong government officials who are steering the government and undermining real true democracy from the inside.
Snowden was never a government appointee. His efforts to expose the surveillance state undermined and exposed the work of unelected lifetime government employees collecting blackmail material to use against the populace, aka the DEEP STATE.
So perhaps keep the photo displayed in private, rather than the lobby of your hotel. Prticularly given that austrian law is pretty strict about the public display of Nazi symbols
Re: No one has the "right" to "not be offended"... In God We Tru
Unfortunately, the law is not written that way.
The majority does not support Marijuana prohibition, but prohibition remains federal policy, for instance.
The issue is not offense, but the sanctioning of a specific religion by government authority in violation of the first amendment, which this statue, particularly with the proven lies employed to avoid that claim, seems to be.
The bill of rights is in place to protect the minority from the overreach of the government put in place by the majority.
As I noted, copyright lengths are so far removed from the purpose of copyright that there appears to be no logical limiting factor to where expansion should end.
But you miss another entity that might operate on timescales that 150 years seems limited - a government.
Life+75 years is inherently limited in the real sense of the word. The retroactive expansions are what really sparks comparison. But those appear to have ended. It might be that your perception of life+75 is that it is forever, but in the real sense of the English word 'limited', it is not unlimited and therefore forever. In the real intent of the wording of the constitution, I would agree as stated before that it is not in line with the spirit of the limited time clause, but that does not appear to be what you are claiming.
Perverse Incentives. When firefighting is sold as a form insurance rather than a public service, firefighting companies have been known to encourage business by starting fires on properties covered by rivals. Ensure that more fires occur than a rival can handle at once. And much as people don't buy health insurance when they are healthy, and much like we don't like funding firefighters as a public service, people don't like paying for fire suppression they haven't used. So you get people who don't buy insurance, counting on the guy next to them to get it, and firefighters needing to save the buildings surrounding the building covered. There are also issues with growth in a captive static market. Much like broadband, you don't largely get growth in your firefighting footprint. The market is likely to stratify into defined Monopolistic territories. And of course, for public safety you need fire insurance. Your landlord will demand it, if your city doesn't. And so people would be left without recourse.
As for private police? We don't largely have those, so your question is unfounded. However we can use a few stand-ins. Bounty hunters are the best example. Legally allowed the use of force and protected by the law, we have seen outrageous property damage, injury and unnecessary deaths result without consequence. There remains again mob-like perverse incentives in a private police force operating for profit, which asset forfeiture highlight clearly.
The city argued that 10 years was a limit, but the judge took umbrage with this perspective, because of the potential for unlimited renewals. It was seen, like much of the actions of the city, as a way to paper over the clear concerns. Like the way they claimed the statue was about its role as a body of law, rather than the religious connotations before they were forced to admit it was funded by a private religious organization. There is no inherent limiting factor to the duration of that statue.
In contrast, it remains the assumption that Life is universally limited in scope, and therefore life+75 with no renewals is inherently limited, if not a strictly defined amount.
Now, we could argue that Life+anything is beyond the limited scope intended by the authors of the Constitution. I would agree with that. Under the current rational, there appears no factor to prevent 'Copyright lasts until the sun has consumed Mercury in its death expansion' from being the standard outside no one being brazen enough to suggest it. But there is no dissonance in the question of whether Life+75 is considered inherently limited.
Thanks to my roommate, I have live TV. Over the cost of internet alone, the TV service with 230+ channels costs me $30. So $0.13 per channel.
If I watched Live TV, I would watch like 5 of these channels. So in theory I am spending $30 to get $0.65 worth of content.
Streaming, to get the content of those 5 channels would run me something like $50. That's an issue. Part of it is replacing ad revenue, I get that. But that is why Ala cart TV plans are different than streaming. People don't often want to pay for commercial-supported content in streaming I'd figure. And figure the ad revenue is suffering the same issues as internet ads in general. But people expect commercials in Live TV, even cable, nowadays. You could significantly discount that service as a alacart live TV provider in ways you can't as a pure streaming provider.
They are different services, and the expectation is the revenue factors are different and could discount the $10/mo per network we see for streaming.
On the post: Another Day, Another Major Disinformation Effort Facebook Thinks Is Ok
Re:
So, facebook came under a bit of fire because of misinformation spread by Russian-government-backed outfits, including those based in the Ukraine, which were intended to influence an election. Interviews with people on the street suggest that misinformation did in fact make it to voters.
As your statements readily admit at least some of the content is misinformation, from a Ukrainian outfit that appears designed to conceal its origin from general voters and spread misinformation ahead of another election.
And regardless of your opinions on immigration, the image used by the Russian-government-backed IRA and repurposed by the Ukrainan account here sets up a false dichotomy designed to inflame political tensions to influence voters, polarize politicians and deadlock the US politically to neuter our power on the world stage. I'd think that Russian propaganda designed to make America Putin's bitch would be an issue for conservatives, but apparently not.
The issue is that while they express opinions you agree with on illegal immigration, they also are spreading false information. The goal is that you follow them, agreeing with the opinions expressed, and then buy into the lies and misinformation that come along with it.** We see, in general, lies and disinformation as detrimental to our Democracy, but tolerate some level of this as a part of our interest in free speech. But when foreign entities utilize lies and disinformation in connection with elections we see that as a line too far. Facebook is only doing what our elected officials, on both sides, have asked them to do.
**As an allegory for how this works: Its not unlike how Jordan Peterson gained a following that express his political beliefs. He provided basic self help advice which helped a number of people. When he later expressed political beliefs either directly or indirectly, his followers than associated those political beliefs with the proven advice Jordan Peterson gave.
On the post: People Freaking Out About Amazon Copying A Shoe Are Totally Missing The Point
Re: Re: Are you getting paid for Trolling?
To be fair, "your elliptical shot at copyright / patents" reads to me as a metaphor for making an argument in a less than straightforward manner.
Or as I just realized, you might be employing Blue's own pedantry against him. I got Poe'd is suppose.
On the post: People Freaking Out About Amazon Copying A Shoe Are Totally Missing The Point
Re:
As argued by Techdirt repeatedly when these things come up, transparency into the algorithms would be good. The statement was to note that Amazon was not in fact pushing it's own knock off Over Allbirds. There is the question of if they are choosing to intentionally downrank allbirds, but that claim can't really be addressed by your findings.
The assumption would be that people looking for allbirds on Amazon primarily purchase lower cost knock-offs than the genuine article, pushing the Allbird's result lower. Its the self-reinforcing issue that can also be questioned with any search algorithm that learns and can be trained.
On the post: People Freaking Out About Amazon Copying A Shoe Are Totally Missing The Point
Re: Are you getting paid for endorsing crappy knock-offs?
I saw no endorsement of wither shoe. Mike made a reference to the general reputation of Allbirds, not his own personal opinion, and claims about the features generally valued by customers that are not present in the Amazon knock off. In no place did he express an opinion endorsing either shoe, particularly the Amazon shoe.
How convenient. If you had the capacity to comprehend what you've read, you'd know that Mike expressed the same position - Copyright should not be involved in this case.
On the post: Court Shoots Down Cop's Assertion That Driving Without Breaking Any Laws Is 'Suspicious'
Re: If only 'peace officers' were required to know the law
"Right to work" does not mean "Employers have to go through hoops to fire you". It is not a contrast to "At will employment".
At will employment means there are no employment protections in your employment contract, and that as long as you aren't fired for explicitly illegal reasons, there is no need an employer let you go 'For cause'. All states in the US are at will employment states, though some states recognise some exceptions.
"Right to work" states bar employers from requiring you be a part of a union, and therefore bar Unions from requiring employees be members. Nothing about right to work requires an employer to document 'cause' to fire you. In fact, right to work makes it more likely you won't be covered by the biggest reason they might not be able to fire you: A bargaining agreement with a union.
Please stop conflating At-Will employment and Right to Work laws. They aren't comparable situations, they aren't mutually exclusive, and nothing you said makes any sense when you know what they are.
On the post: Court Shoots Down Cop's Assertion That Driving Without Breaking Any Laws Is 'Suspicious'
Re: Re: Re:
On more than one occasion he has claimed he has had to submit a comment 10+ times before it wasn't 'held for moderation'. And he wonders why he his posts are considered spam.
On the post: AT&T Ponders Dumping DirecTV After Investor Backlash, But It's Not Likely To Help
Feels like something got cut out of the middle of this.
On the post: Buried Whistleblower Report Apparently Involves President Trump's Conversations With A Foreign Leader
Re: Re: Re:
Congress has no power over the power of classification. That is entirely an executive branch power, a program created by executive order under the power of the executive to protect national security. The executive grants the power to classify material to agencies, not Congress. The power is limited by the Judiciary, not congress.
More telling is the assumption that it was declassification that was the misconduct, rather than say a promise to utilize surveillance powers to investigate US citizens of interest to a foreign government in violation of the law. The AC is already narrowing the window on what The accusation is.
On the post: House Joins The Senate In Moving Forward On Plan To Massively Increase Copyright Trolling
Re: Re: Corporate Rights
Poe's law has struck in this instance. Gary is running a parody of our usual Pro-copyright lobby.
On the post: DOJ Decides To Help Publicize Snowden's Memoir By Suing Him For Failing To Run His Book By The CIA And NSA First
Re: Re: Re: Re: Snowden Hates Trump
I'd imagine he would get the same protections as in Russia. However, his presence in Russia is often used as a weapon against him, and I am sure he expects his asylum in Russia is based mostly in his value as a tool for the Russian Government. I don't expect he could travel outside france, he might have an easier time communicating with people, connecting with them, when they can come to him and meet him in person, as opposed to a video call. Right now he is limited in his movements, and travel to russia isn't easy. Americans can easily travel to France, as could other europeans, without applying for a travel visa. This would allow for more personable communication.
On the post: Senator Hawley Responds To Techdirt With A Bunch Of Nonsense And Lies About His Own Bill That He Doesn't Seem To Understand
Re: Re: Re:
Well, you might note your link notes that entry 3 is usually offensive. It is considered offensive because it equates mental retardation with general stupidity. It was using the term for one afflicted with mental retardation to insult someone without mental retardation, thereby insulting those with mental retardation.
Form 1 generally applies to objects, as the application of the word retard to people is either in form 2 as a slur, or as an insult in form 3 reinforcing the idea that form 2 is a slur.
On the post: Space X May Soon Give The US Broadband Sector A Much Needed Kick In The Ass
Re:
The government is not the biggest impediment to Comcast, TMC, Et al, from competing. Its infrastructure. Specifically, privately owed fiber that delivers internet and TV service in most areas. Direct TV and Dish (when they were both independent) competed with each other and competed with the local wireline networks. But wireline networks are expensive, and overbuilding to produce competition does not improve the market the way a new burger joint might.
On the post: DOJ Decides To Help Publicize Snowden's Memoir By Suing Him For Failing To Run His Book By The CIA And NSA First
Re: Re: Snowden Hates Trump
Better, just because he is satisfied with being in Russia doesn't mean asylum in France wouldn't be a better situation for continued advocacy.
On the post: DOJ Decides To Help Publicize Snowden's Memoir By Suing Him For Failing To Run His Book By The CIA And NSA First
Re: Snowden Hates Trump
Your use of Deep State to describe Snowden is particularly confusing. The 'Deep State', in so far as I understand the claim, are appointed, unelected lifelong government officials who are steering the government and undermining real true democracy from the inside.
Snowden was never a government appointee. His efforts to expose the surveillance state undermined and exposed the work of unelected lifetime government employees collecting blackmail material to use against the populace, aka the DEEP STATE.
On the post: Hotel Owner Files Libel Suit Against Reviewer For Calling Nazis Nazis, Gets Support From Austrian Court
Re: Re: Re:
So perhaps keep the photo displayed in private, rather than the lobby of your hotel. Prticularly given that austrian law is pretty strict about the public display of Nazi symbols
On the post: New Mexico City Starts Crowdfunding Effort To Pay For Its Stupid Defense Of Constitutional Violations
Re: No one has the "right" to "not be offended"... In God We Tru
Unfortunately, the law is not written that way.
The majority does not support Marijuana prohibition, but prohibition remains federal policy, for instance.
The issue is not offense, but the sanctioning of a specific religion by government authority in violation of the first amendment, which this statue, particularly with the proven lies employed to avoid that claim, seems to be.
The bill of rights is in place to protect the minority from the overreach of the government put in place by the majority.
On the post: New Mexico City Starts Crowdfunding Effort To Pay For Its Stupid Defense Of Constitutional Violations
Re: Re: Re:
As I noted, copyright lengths are so far removed from the purpose of copyright that there appears to be no logical limiting factor to where expansion should end.
But you miss another entity that might operate on timescales that 150 years seems limited - a government.
Life+75 years is inherently limited in the real sense of the word. The retroactive expansions are what really sparks comparison. But those appear to have ended. It might be that your perception of life+75 is that it is forever, but in the real sense of the English word 'limited', it is not unlimited and therefore forever. In the real intent of the wording of the constitution, I would agree as stated before that it is not in line with the spirit of the limited time clause, but that does not appear to be what you are claiming.
On the post: New Mexico City Starts Crowdfunding Effort To Pay For Its Stupid Defense Of Constitutional Violations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perverse Incentives. When firefighting is sold as a form insurance rather than a public service, firefighting companies have been known to encourage business by starting fires on properties covered by rivals. Ensure that more fires occur than a rival can handle at once. And much as people don't buy health insurance when they are healthy, and much like we don't like funding firefighters as a public service, people don't like paying for fire suppression they haven't used. So you get people who don't buy insurance, counting on the guy next to them to get it, and firefighters needing to save the buildings surrounding the building covered. There are also issues with growth in a captive static market. Much like broadband, you don't largely get growth in your firefighting footprint. The market is likely to stratify into defined Monopolistic territories. And of course, for public safety you need fire insurance. Your landlord will demand it, if your city doesn't. And so people would be left without recourse.
As for private police? We don't largely have those, so your question is unfounded. However we can use a few stand-ins. Bounty hunters are the best example. Legally allowed the use of force and protected by the law, we have seen outrageous property damage, injury and unnecessary deaths result without consequence. There remains again mob-like perverse incentives in a private police force operating for profit, which asset forfeiture highlight clearly.
On the post: New Mexico City Starts Crowdfunding Effort To Pay For Its Stupid Defense Of Constitutional Violations
Re:
The city argued that 10 years was a limit, but the judge took umbrage with this perspective, because of the potential for unlimited renewals. It was seen, like much of the actions of the city, as a way to paper over the clear concerns. Like the way they claimed the statue was about its role as a body of law, rather than the religious connotations before they were forced to admit it was funded by a private religious organization. There is no inherent limiting factor to the duration of that statue.
In contrast, it remains the assumption that Life is universally limited in scope, and therefore life+75 with no renewals is inherently limited, if not a strictly defined amount.
Now, we could argue that Life+anything is beyond the limited scope intended by the authors of the Constitution. I would agree with that. Under the current rational, there appears no factor to prevent 'Copyright lasts until the sun has consumed Mercury in its death expansion' from being the standard outside no one being brazen enough to suggest it. But there is no dissonance in the question of whether Life+75 is considered inherently limited.
On the post: Comcast Sues Maine For Demanding It Sell TV Channels À La Carte
Re: galaxybrain.gif
Thanks to my roommate, I have live TV. Over the cost of internet alone, the TV service with 230+ channels costs me $30. So $0.13 per channel.
If I watched Live TV, I would watch like 5 of these channels. So in theory I am spending $30 to get $0.65 worth of content.
Streaming, to get the content of those 5 channels would run me something like $50. That's an issue. Part of it is replacing ad revenue, I get that. But that is why Ala cart TV plans are different than streaming. People don't often want to pay for commercial-supported content in streaming I'd figure. And figure the ad revenue is suffering the same issues as internet ads in general. But people expect commercials in Live TV, even cable, nowadays. You could significantly discount that service as a alacart live TV provider in ways you can't as a pure streaming provider.
They are different services, and the expectation is the revenue factors are different and could discount the $10/mo per network we see for streaming.
Next >>