Dude, the invasion of privacy is NOT AT ALL what you seem to think it is.
It's not about "What you put on Facebook". That's a big "duh". Of course anything you put up on the site is now out there. You can tweak the settings, but it's out there. Duh.
It IS about "Everything you do, visit, read, dwell, mouse over, like, look at, and turn away from. It IS about how often you're looking, at what time. It IS about who you know, who you pay more attention to, or less. THIS is what Facebook and Cambridge Analytica are MOST interested in, not your fucking cat photos.
The paragraph above is the stuff that tells them who you really are, what you're really into, and how to grab your attention - and manipulate it.
As for mobile networks, yes. AT&T and Verizon, as former incumbents, have the longest histories of cooperating with gov't surveillance. Newer and smaller carriers, and MVNOs less so. But any cellular network, by default, collects lots of data about you by necessity, like your location. You could try a secure phone, like those from DarkMatter. At least the phone's Android OS has been tweaked to share as little data as possible.
I'm not sure either. Looks like another term cooked up by the way-right, Ann Coulter, or such. Like SJW.
Really though, it's the same as "ginks, gooks, jerries, sand-n****s" etc. Take your pick.
It's an effort from the propaganda wing of the alt-right to dehumanize people with different opinions, who should be considered as on the same team with different views. It helps drum up the divisions and fear of the "other", and it makes it easier to vilify and fight them.
Small-minded people tend to accept, then use these shorthand terms as badges on their quasi-uniform.
Aside from the other arguments people have made to rebut you, please note that:
The gov't asking companies to take down pirated content, or other such stuff is NOT PAYING THEM one red cent to do so. It's a command to spend resources to protect the gov't-created monopolies that profit some OTHER company.
The gov't asking AT&T to validate the calls in this article is a condition of the gov't paying the bill for all such validated calls. It's more like "We are paying YOU do provide a service in a contracted way, please provide it."
Hey, I know it's now 11 years later, so my comment isn't exactly "timely"...buuuut
Both your comment and the one by KevinL above are saying "Nah, it's not so bad. I got a box for free (or $50 for him), and after that, it's a good deal."
Sure, but what does that say about their business, if they have to give away the hardware to get anyone to adopt their service? At the time, those were high-end HD boxes. They had to give them away at a loss to win customers. So, for a number of months, until they buy enough movies that the margin wins back the cost of the equipment, every customer represents a loss.
It's not caused by regs. It's caused by naturally occurring: High CapEx to start Smaller Addressable market for new entrants Higher total costs of redundant infrastructures Economies of scale.
John Stuart Mill first explored natural monopolies, concluding that these services should either be delivered by the government, or by a tightly regulated private monopoly. We tend to call these businesses "utilities".
So, the market failure you say regs will cause is a real risk. The the market failure with no regs is a SURE THING. Given the choice of being thrown in a volcano (no regs, certain market failure), or flipping a coin - heads we throw you in the volcano, tails we don't (regs that may cause market failure)...you should prefer the coin toss.
"The idea that Comcast will take full advantage of the one two-punch of limited competition and apathetic regulators is all but a certainty according to history."
Worse than that. Once they lobby and Pai changes the rules, their non-binding promises will shift again and thus are worth bubkis, but they will have a FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY to the shareholders to explore ways of using their increased market control to generate more profits.
Liberals and leftists have a purity issue, in that they want the perfect candidate (or policy), and let that be the enemy of the good candidate. They did it with Bernie and HRC, and countless other times.
To win elections, better would be to have the kind of "big tent" the GOP has, where poor bible thumpers vote in alignment with rich oligarchs for fuck-knows-what shared goals. But they align and accept their allies' flaws, like, I dunno, pedophilia, as they pull the lever.
So, that said, I want to vote for the "least worst" option, every time. Because that actually matters. And I am willing to align with people with very different views on an issue-by-issue basis to make coalitions to get the policy wins I seek.
But there are some groups with whom I would never align. Nazis and pedophiles are in this category. This used to be obvious, but there you go. A big tent can be too big, too. Gotta leave some scum out in the sun to dry up.
Fuck the racism lobbed against Pai. It's cruel, wrong, and counter productive all at once. Folks, if you want to get angry at Pai, or you want to shout him down, there are readily available valid concerns one could address. It's not hard to find something to get angry about which is policy-based.
That said, Net Neutrality is NOT a partisan issue, it's The People versus the Oligopolists. There are just three categories of interested people: The sellouts, those rightly against, and those duped.
"I have noted several times that I support strong anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulations.
Take a quick guess on how many of you remember that the next time I trash talk the current regulations or rib people for supporting bad regulations?"
Wait...am I supposed to know who TF you are? Like I will follow an Anonymous commenter from one article to the next?
Jeez, you could barely expect that kind of recognition if you used your real name, but you want me to put each of your comments into the context of your larger body of *anonymous* work?
"We have been doing this for so long, I don't think any of the rules, new or old are being followed. they just read a couple of laws and then twist them to mean what they need them to mean as needed for the situation."
Then you should like the blocking of this merger based on anti-trust policy. Because blocking a deal doesn't involve very much gov't interference, nor any ongoing rules or compliance. It's a one-time gov't intervention, then allow competition to work its magic.
Allow me to save this pointless thread where ACs on both sides say basically nothing.
Yes, regulation could help the public here.
If you like free markets, then you should dislike monopoly, and its ugly step-sister, oligopoly. In Oligopoly markets, the vendors have price control and the ability to impede market entry from new competitors.
This market control results in NOT a free market, but one controlled by the oligopolists. The most obvious results are: reduced quality of services and/or higher prices.
Well-placed anti-trust regulations can interfere in the market in such a way as to raise competition, and actually make the market more closely resemble a "free market".
The obvious example here is the Anti-trust breakup of the AT&T monopoly 1982, which had incredible payoff in terms of lower prices, and creating more efficient competitors that out-performed the old Ma Bell.
Right. So you may suffer some brand devaluation by the association.
I would suggest a strong statement dis-associating your brand from (in this case) PewDiePie, and publishing it as widely as you choose. This is what musicians can do when politicians use their songs at rallies - you can't block their use, but you can state your difference of opinion. We basically visit this same story a few times every election.
Re: Re: Re: The concern is there may be a form of regulatory capture going on
This is a good point, Thad. Because the argument being made by Paolo and Jane Doe seems to rest on the unsaid assertion that: "Google is fighting this because they want to continue to make money from human trafficking."
I find that assertion unlikely. Google has many easier ways of making money, which don't carry the brand or criminal risk. What is Google's likely motivation? Google is against SESTA because of the chilling effects on free speech, and Internet freedom. They are not worried about SESTA harming their "sex trafficking business", but rather the rest of their business.
And, as such, they are just the canary in a coal mine for a myriad of startups present and future, whose business ideas may be cut down because of a possible nefarious use of their tech. We don't ban roads because of traffic deaths, we don't ban cargo vans because they're well suited for kidnapping, and in general, we don't ban the tools, but rather the illegal use of those tools. We blame the criminals, not the tool makers.
Why should this be different?
At what cost do we enable our government to catch the bad guys? How much freedom and privacy must I give up? And if I'm being promised that sacrificing my freedom will save these victims' lives -- is that true? Will it work? Or could the government and police do their jobs just as well without?
Are there alternatives? Could we get the same effect by just funding the police 4% more, and still keep our freedoms? I'd rather protect the Jane Doe victims with my money than my freedoms.
Re: Re: The concern is there may be a form of regulatory capture going on
"That's the same flimsy argument that telco shills use arguing that they have "always been for free markets" or "against government regulation".
Except that telcos are so often visibly NOT in favor of free markets and ARE in favor of Regs they like. They support their market-capturing franchise deals, barriers to entry, utility pole monopoly, spectrum exclusivity, and so much more.
Can you show me where the EFF wasn't consistently in favor of a free and open Internet?
On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry
Re: Mobile Networks and Privacy Rankings
It's not about "What you put on Facebook". That's a big "duh". Of course anything you put up on the site is now out there. You can tweak the settings, but it's out there. Duh.
It IS about "Everything you do, visit, read, dwell, mouse over, like, look at, and turn away from. It IS about how often you're looking, at what time. It IS about who you know, who you pay more attention to, or less. THIS is what Facebook and Cambridge Analytica are MOST interested in, not your fucking cat photos.
The paragraph above is the stuff that tells them who you really are, what you're really into, and how to grab your attention - and manipulate it.
As for mobile networks, yes. AT&T and Verizon, as former incumbents, have the longest histories of cooperating with gov't surveillance. Newer and smaller carriers, and MVNOs less so. But any cellular network, by default, collects lots of data about you by necessity, like your location. You could try a secure phone, like those from DarkMatter. At least the phone's Android OS has been tweaked to share as little data as possible.
On the post: If You're Pissed About Facebook's Privacy Abuses, You Should Be Four Times As Angry At The Broadband Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Plenty to be pissed about...
I'm not sure either. Looks like another term cooked up by the way-right, Ann Coulter, or such. Like SJW.
Really though, it's the same as "ginks, gooks, jerries, sand-n****s" etc. Take your pick.
It's an effort from the propaganda wing of the alt-right to dehumanize people with different opinions, who should be considered as on the same team with different views. It helps drum up the divisions and fear of the "other", and it makes it easier to vilify and fight them.
Small-minded people tend to accept, then use these shorthand terms as badges on their quasi-uniform.
On the post: Feds Finally Realize That AT&T Has Been Enabling Scammers To Abuse IP Fraud... Financed By Taxpayers
Re:
The gov't asking companies to take down pirated content, or other such stuff is NOT PAYING THEM one red cent to do so. It's a command to spend resources to protect the gov't-created monopolies that profit some OTHER company.
The gov't asking AT&T to validate the calls in this article is a condition of the gov't paying the bill for all such validated calls. It's more like "We are paying YOU do provide a service in a contracted way, please provide it."
On the post: Dashcam Recording Instantly Undercuts Officers' Concocted Reason For A Traffic Stop
The Fix is In
Come on. The take-away here for "law enforcement" officers is that the "easiest fix" is to lose, scrub, delete, or alter the video.
Altering your character and your habits - that's hard. Deleting some video? We know this happens all the time.
On the post: MovieBeam Finally Dead For Real
Re: MovieBeam
Both your comment and the one by KevinL above are saying "Nah, it's not so bad. I got a box for free (or $50 for him), and after that, it's a good deal."
Sure, but what does that say about their business, if they have to give away the hardware to get anyone to adopt their service? At the time, those were high-end HD boxes. They had to give them away at a loss to win customers. So, for a number of months, until they buy enough movies that the margin wins back the cost of the equipment, every customer represents a loss.
On the post: Why I Changed My Mind On Net Neutrality
Re: "The more regulations we add, the more businesses seem to screw me."
Kinda like how regulations that say meat can't be tainted screw us out of our right to eat rotten meat, or mad cow meat.
Methinks we have an extremist who refuses to see one side of the issue
On the post: Why I Changed My Mind On Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: "You just won't stop corruption"
In part. But the real reason we have telecom oligopolies is because this industry is a "natural monopoly".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
It's not caused by regs. It's caused by naturally occurring:
High CapEx to start
Smaller Addressable market for new entrants
Higher total costs of redundant infrastructures
Economies of scale.
John Stuart Mill first explored natural monopolies, concluding that these services should either be delivered by the government, or by a tightly regulated private monopoly. We tend to call these businesses "utilities".
So, the market failure you say regs will cause is a real risk. The the market failure with no regs is a SURE THING. Given the choice of being thrown in a volcano (no regs, certain market failure), or flipping a coin - heads we throw you in the volcano, tails we don't (regs that may cause market failure)...you should prefer the coin toss.
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: As Net Neutrality Repeal Nears, Comcast's Promise To Avoid 'Paid Prioritization' Disappears
Fiduciary Responsibility
Worse than that. Once they lobby and Pai changes the rules, their non-binding promises will shift again and thus are worth bubkis, but they will have a FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY to the shareholders to explore ways of using their increased market control to generate more profits.
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
Re:
To win elections, better would be to have the kind of "big tent" the GOP has, where poor bible thumpers vote in alignment with rich oligarchs for fuck-knows-what shared goals. But they align and accept their allies' flaws, like, I dunno, pedophilia, as they pull the lever.
So, that said, I want to vote for the "least worst" option, every time. Because that actually matters. And I am willing to align with people with very different views on an issue-by-issue basis to make coalitions to get the policy wins I seek.
But there are some groups with whom I would never align. Nazis and pedophiles are in this category. This used to be obvious, but there you go. A big tent can be too big, too. Gotta leave some scum out in the sun to dry up.
Fuck the racism lobbed against Pai. It's cruel, wrong, and counter productive all at once. Folks, if you want to get angry at Pai, or you want to shout him down, there are readily available valid concerns one could address. It's not hard to find something to get angry about which is policy-based.
That said, Net Neutrality is NOT a partisan issue, it's The People versus the Oligopolists. There are just three categories of interested people: The sellouts, those rightly against, and those duped.
On the post: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Popehat, Dissent Doe And Others Over A Smiley Emoji Tweet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WWKD
On the post: Michigan Lawmaker Doesn't Understand Her Own Bill Hamstringing Broadband Competition
Re:
https://www.mackinac.org/10118
Franchise deals made sense then...now, less so. The article explains some reasons why.
On the post: The Latest On Shiva Ayyadurai's Failed Libel Suit Against Techdirt
Re:
"Justice" would see TD's legal fees paid, plus time, and emotional suffering. It would have a punitive element to prevent further SLAPP suits.
We may be satisfied with the results, but I won't see it as justice.
On the post: Prepare For An Epic Bullshit Sales Pitch For The Competition-Killing Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: don't wory
Take a quick guess on how many of you remember that the next time I trash talk the current regulations or rib people for supporting bad regulations?"
Wait...am I supposed to know who TF you are? Like I will follow an Anonymous commenter from one article to the next?
Jeez, you could barely expect that kind of recognition if you used your real name, but you want me to put each of your comments into the context of your larger body of *anonymous* work?
On the post: Prepare For An Epic Bullshit Sales Pitch For The Competition-Killing Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
Then you should like the blocking of this merger based on anti-trust policy. Because blocking a deal doesn't involve very much gov't interference, nor any ongoing rules or compliance. It's a one-time gov't intervention, then allow competition to work its magic.
On the post: Prepare For An Epic Bullshit Sales Pitch For The Competition-Killing Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: don't wory
Yes, regulation could help the public here.
If you like free markets, then you should dislike monopoly, and its ugly step-sister, oligopoly. In Oligopoly markets, the vendors have price control and the ability to impede market entry from new competitors.
This market control results in NOT a free market, but one controlled by the oligopolists. The most obvious results are: reduced quality of services and/or higher prices.
Well-placed anti-trust regulations can interfere in the market in such a way as to raise competition, and actually make the market more closely resemble a "free market".
The obvious example here is the Anti-trust breakup of the AT&T monopoly 1982, which had incredible payoff in terms of lower prices, and creating more efficient competitors that out-performed the old Ma Bell.
So, ah...yeah. Regulation can save us.
On the post: It Doesn't Matter How Much Of An Asshole You Think Someone Is, That's No Excuse To DMCA
Re: Re: Sick And Tired
I would suggest a strong statement dis-associating your brand from (in this case) PewDiePie, and publishing it as widely as you choose. This is what musicians can do when politicians use their songs at rallies - you can't block their use, but you can state your difference of opinion. We basically visit this same story a few times every election.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160725/07541435058/john-olivers-story-campaign-music-co pyright-is-wrong.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/03482614973/dear-musicians-once-aga in-politicians-can-probably-play-your-songs-events-without-your-permission.shtml
On the post: Yes, You Can Believe In Internet Freedom Without Being A Shill
Re: Re: Re: The concern is there may be a form of regulatory capture going on
I find that assertion unlikely. Google has many easier ways of making money, which don't carry the brand or criminal risk. What is Google's likely motivation? Google is against SESTA because of the chilling effects on free speech, and Internet freedom. They are not worried about SESTA harming their "sex trafficking business", but rather the rest of their business.
And, as such, they are just the canary in a coal mine for a myriad of startups present and future, whose business ideas may be cut down because of a possible nefarious use of their tech. We don't ban roads because of traffic deaths, we don't ban cargo vans because they're well suited for kidnapping, and in general, we don't ban the tools, but rather the illegal use of those tools. We blame the criminals, not the tool makers.
Why should this be different?
At what cost do we enable our government to catch the bad guys? How much freedom and privacy must I give up? And if I'm being promised that sacrificing my freedom will save these victims' lives -- is that true? Will it work? Or could the government and police do their jobs just as well without?
Are there alternatives? Could we get the same effect by just funding the police 4% more, and still keep our freedoms? I'd rather protect the Jane Doe victims with my money than my freedoms.
On the post: Yes, You Can Believe In Internet Freedom Without Being A Shill
Re: Re: The concern is there may be a form of regulatory capture going on
Except that telcos are so often visibly NOT in favor of free markets and ARE in favor of Regs they like. They support their market-capturing franchise deals, barriers to entry, utility pole monopoly, spectrum exclusivity, and so much more.
Can you show me where the EFF wasn't consistently in favor of a free and open Internet?
On the post: Yes, You Can Believe In Internet Freedom Without Being A Shill
Re:
Hitler sings in the springtime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsql523bSj4
Next >>