Can you really be a monopoly when no one is forced to use your product or service? (No, BTW.)
It's about having other options, not about force. Nobody was forcing anyone to have a phone line in the 70s, but AT&T was still a monopoly because there was nobody else selling phone service.
And if it's mostly free?
Interesting question. I would think a free service could still fall under a monopoly definition.
What is the FTC saying? ...basically, that users and competitors of Facebook products and services don't have enough control over Facebook.
I haven't read the whole case, but that isn't what I picked up. Where did they say users and competitors should control Facebook?
Apple has already set up its own shell company. It plans to "sell" the data to the shell company, which will sell the data to various governments around the world.
Is this speculative fiction, or a thing that's actually happened? If the latter, where can we read about it?
Not at all. Whole milk is milk that has not had any fat skimmed off, whether it's straight from a cow or it's had something else done to it. As I said, I have not found any reference that any whole milk ever contains more than 3.5% fat, let alone the "much higher" fat content claimed above. Nor any indication that the pasteurized whole milk commonly found in grocery stores has a lower fat content than raw milk. I welcome any such references anyone can supply.
Re: large portions of the DOD, DHS and Justice system are immora
This is terribly easy to confirm.
To be clear, I don't mean immoral as currently operated. By OldMugwump's definition, it would be immoral to even have a military, police force, prisons, or a court system. Because a private citizen could not morally carry out any of those functions.
If Google wasn't evil, they would take up these cases
I don't think Google can just decide to be a defendant in a case they're not involved in, even if they want to. They could help with the defense though.
I'm pretty sure indemnification doesn't work that way.
IANAL but I think indemnification works however a contract/waiver/agreement says it does. Perhaps you're thinking of patent exhaustion, which is built in (doesn't require a specific agreement between parties) and works in the direction you indicate. However I'm not sure that applies either.
"The doctrine of patent exhaustion holds that once a patent owner has sold a patented product for the first time, they no longer have control over it: the buyer can use, sell, license, or destroy it as they wish."
This case involves a patent troll who isn't making or selling a product at all. Their claim is not that someone bought their captcha product and then misused it somehow, but that they used someone else's product that was infringing. This type of claim should also be completely barred IMO but I don't know if it is.
It's interesting that your only concern is that a criminal escaped punishment, and not that a citizen's rights were violated. Not surprising, but interesting.
I remember they made a ruling that if a crime is terrible enough (specifically citing drug possession) that evidence is admissible even if it was illegally obtained.
I would like to read about it if so, so post a link if you find one.
Re: 'Well we lost this case, on to the next illegal search.'
Which I'm sure they'll be ragged about at the department but really should come with some personal penalties for everyone involved
That would require a lawsuit (or disciplinary action by the police department HAHAHAHAHAHA). This was a criminal case, the state vs Woodard, so there is no mechanism for enforcing penalties against police officers, who are not even party to the case, let alone a defendant.
Advertisers want posts that get a lot of attention. That's largely controversial posts. They don't want to get any of the controversy on themselves of course, so they and FB want to suppress anything that makes them look bad. But their moderation is clearly not designed to prune controversial content.
On the post: FTC Tries Tries Again With An Antitrust Case Against Facebook
Re:
It's about having other options, not about force. Nobody was forcing anyone to have a phone line in the 70s, but AT&T was still a monopoly because there was nobody else selling phone service.
Interesting question. I would think a free service could still fall under a monopoly definition.
I haven't read the whole case, but that isn't what I picked up. Where did they say users and competitors should control Facebook?
On the post: Researchers Who Built Similar System Explain Why Apple's CSAM Scanning System Is Dangerous
Re:
Is this speculative fiction, or a thing that's actually happened? If the latter, where can we read about it?
On the post: Washington State Supreme Court Says $547 Fine Imposed On A Homeless Man Violates The Constitution
Re:
Where did that happen?
On the post: Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was
Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammatically correct headline ...
I think that was someone who didn't realize "subjunctive" and "subjective" are different words.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Iowa's Ag-Gag Law Is About 50 Percent Constitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all. Whole milk is milk that has not had any fat skimmed off, whether it's straight from a cow or it's had something else done to it. As I said, I have not found any reference that any whole milk ever contains more than 3.5% fat, let alone the "much higher" fat content claimed above. Nor any indication that the pasteurized whole milk commonly found in grocery stores has a lower fat content than raw milk. I welcome any such references anyone can supply.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Iowa's Ag-Gag Law Is About 50 Percent Constitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reference for any of the fat content claims? I can find nothing indicating whole milk is any more than 3.25 - 3.5% fat.
On the post: There's a Growing Backlash Against Tech's Infamous Secrecy. Why Now?
Re:
I thought the point was that tech journalists are finally starting to do their jobs recently.
On the post: New Hampshire PD's Recruitment Pitch Lists Qualified Immunity As A Job Perk
Re: large portions of the DOD, DHS and Justice system are immora
To be clear, I don't mean immoral as currently operated. By OldMugwump's definition, it would be immoral to even have a military, police force, prisons, or a court system. Because a private citizen could not morally carry out any of those functions.
On the post: New Hampshire PD's Recruitment Pitch Lists Qualified Immunity As A Job Perk
Re: Re: same flaws as regular humans
That would make at least large portions of the departments of defense, homeland security, and justice immoral. Is that what you were going for?
On the post: Louisiana & Alabama Attorneys General Set Up Silly Hotline To Report 'Social Media Censorship' They Can't Do Anything About
Re: We all know this is performative
The Democrats don't want to be seen as sticking up for Facebook et al.
On the post: The End Of Ownership: How Big Companies Are Trying To Turn Everyone Into Renters
Re:
You misspelled "American Heritage". ;-)
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: This Captcha Patent Is An All-American Nightmare
Re:
I don't think Google can just decide to be a defendant in a case they're not involved in, even if they want to. They could help with the defense though.
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: This Captcha Patent Is An All-American Nightmare
Re: Re: A problem that shouldn't exist
IANAL but I think indemnification works however a contract/waiver/agreement says it does. Perhaps you're thinking of patent exhaustion, which is built in (doesn't require a specific agreement between parties) and works in the direction you indicate. However I'm not sure that applies either.
"The doctrine of patent exhaustion holds that once a patent owner has sold a patented product for the first time, they no longer have control over it: the buyer can use, sell, license, or destroy it as they wish."
https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2017/04/article_0008.html
This case involves a patent troll who isn't making or selling a product at all. Their claim is not that someone bought their captcha product and then misused it somehow, but that they used someone else's product that was infringing. This type of claim should also be completely barred IMO but I don't know if it is.
On the post: Tenth Circuit Says Pretextual Inventory Searches Need To Be A Whole Lot Less Pretextual
Re: Damnit not again!
It's interesting that your only concern is that a criminal escaped punishment, and not that a citizen's rights were violated. Not surprising, but interesting.
On the post: Tenth Circuit Says Pretextual Inventory Searches Need To Be A Whole Lot Less Pretextual
Re: Didn't SCOTUS fix this for the police?
I would like to read about it if so, so post a link if you find one.
On the post: Tenth Circuit Says Pretextual Inventory Searches Need To Be A Whole Lot Less Pretextual
Re: 'Well we lost this case, on to the next illegal search.'
That would require a lawsuit (or disciplinary action by the police department HAHAHAHAHAHA). This was a criminal case, the state vs Woodard, so there is no mechanism for enforcing penalties against police officers, who are not even party to the case, let alone a defendant.
On the post: Hacked Facebook Users Forced To Buy $300 Oculus VR Headset Just To Talk To Customer Support
Re:
The people having the problem are the ones who didn't buy any hardware.
On the post: Louisiana & Alabama Attorneys General Set Up Silly Hotline To Report 'Social Media Censorship' They Can't Do Anything About
Re:
Massive selection bias issues would make this useless for research of moderation in general.
On the post: The End Of Ownership: How Big Companies Are Trying To Turn Everyone Into Renters
Re: copyright to the GREAT RESET!
Take your anti-vax crap somewhere else.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well: Series About Antisemitism Removed By Instagram For Being Antisemetic
Re: Re: Re: Faulty premise
Advertisers want posts that get a lot of attention. That's largely controversial posts. They don't want to get any of the controversy on themselves of course, so they and FB want to suppress anything that makes them look bad. But their moderation is clearly not designed to prune controversial content.
Next >>