What he's failing to recognize is that there are "bots" on both sides of every issue. He's likely reaping as much reward from this situation as perceived harm (read: opposing politicians reaping reward).
An Onymous Coward (profile), 26 Feb 2018 @ 11:06am
Re: Wall of Rights
Of course not. All property rights, vegetation and construction will be stripped away within 25 miles of the wall. This will provide ample room for the firing squads and daily military parades from coast to coast.
Clearly their map is wrong but, for my address, I actually have Frontier fiber 100/100 and their map only shows 30/30 as available in my area. They also show that I can get ADSL and satellite but neither is available here. Of course, the satellite options don't meet the >= 25/3 definition shown on that same map.
It looks like the whole thing is generalized and averaged for an area.
The injunction was dismissed which allowed the owner to do as he pleased with his property. If the pending destruction was foreseen to have an effect on the possible outcome of the case then the injunction should not have been dismissed. It seems pretty clear that the owner was granted license to move forward with his plans.
An Onymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2018 @ 10:44am
Re: Re: Re: Nothing?
Proper parenting can prevent it. If you have a maladjusted kid at home then perhaps you shouldn't let him purchase his own rifle. If you're unaware he's maladjusted then perhaps someone needs to invent a time machine so they can neuter the both of you before you can produce such offspring.
Guns and video games are not the root cause. But the root cause is far harder to treat and doesn't rally the masses like a good false scare can.
An Onymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2018 @ 10:41am
Re: Re: Re: Nothing?
One of them did that once, felt guilty about it and fessed up. He's grown into a well-adjusted adult who can think for himself. And guess what? There were guns in the house he grew up in. He never touched those either.
Exactly this. My kids didn't get to play any violent games until age 18 when, whaddya know, their interest in doing so simply wasn't present. Yes, this is anecdotal but
kids play them and everybody knows it, and there's nothing to prevent the child from playing them
Wrestle with the larger problem in as many small pieces as you like. The problem with "Rich's" argument is that it is not based in reality. The real issue has nothing to do with individual problem reports but in detecting objectionable content before the wrong person does and you get sued for it. That's a vastly different problem statement than "handle a volume of complaints".
"Rich" also assumes, with a very high degree of possibility he is entirely wrong, that Facebook does not already have a good individual complaint handling system. That system has done nothing to save them from becoming a target of many governments around the world.
It seems clear that "Rich" works for small to mid-sized businesses with a dramatically smaller footprint than Facebook. The business fundamentally changes with global exposure/popularity as must the infrastructure that supports it. The economics are completely different. The same rules cannot apply because technology isn't powerful enough to scale beyond a certain threshold and economics prevent being able to attempt to scale beyond that threshold. It's an asymptotic curve. New approaches have to be developed which may include letting some problems work themselves out.
Basically, this whole thread is little more than hot air.
Log into one, and you're automatically logged into the rest.
That simply isn't true. They each offer their own OAuth implementations. While "login with Facebook/Google" is ubiquitous on the web they are not shared authentications. OAuth is simply a standard that allows a web site operator (and others) to offload the work of authenticating users to a 3rd party. OAuth is no less secure than regular username+password authentication*.
On most sites, anyhow. OAuth isn't perfect but most basic auth isn't either.
I'm no fan of facebook, never used it either. But you sound as though you have no knowledge of how facebook came to be what it is today. Before you burn zuckerberg at the stake, do a little reading. Facebook looks nothing at all today as it was originally built to be used. Its users and the need to show a profit drove it where it is now.
An Onymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2018 @ 12:49pm
Re: Re: "Good Samaritans" must be GOOD is key point. And must not be arbitrary, nor is a "provider" given full power over "users". -- It's for The Public's good, in any case, NOT the "provider" as such.
Platforms will have to do away with anonymous posting altogether. They'll need registered usernames so they can block entire accounts that have a tendency to post content that doesn't pass editorial muster. Those will probably expand to IP bans before long and many sites will simply disallow public posting completely.
Platforms like Facebook and Twitter, even YouTube, will find it next to impossible to continue to operate at all. The costs of moderation would destroy their business model. We'll go back to the days of media being controlled entirely by media corporations, all the power back in their hands. And this fool (blue) will be partly to blame.
An Onymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2018 @ 12:43pm
Re: Re: "Good Samaritans" must be GOOD is key point. And must not be arbitrary, nor is a "provider" given full power over "users". -- It's for The Public's good, in any case, NOT the "provider" as such.
Out of one side of his mouth he wants to force platform providers to allow anything and everything users might want to post that might to any degree be considered free speech. Out of the other side he expects those same providers to block out all objectionable content at any cost, nevermind the technical impossibility of doing so. It's a massive cognitive dissonance and characteristic of his posts.
On the post: Senator Klobuchar Thinks We Need To Start Fining Social Media Companies For Not Removing Bots Fast Enough
Re:
On the post: Senator Klobuchar Thinks We Need To Start Fining Social Media Companies For Not Removing Bots Fast Enough
Re: Re: Typical Politicians
On the post: Judge Tells Coal Boss Bob Murray The Judicial Equivalent Of 'Eat Shit, Bob'
On the post: Rancher Sues CBP After Officers Install A Camera On His Private Property
Re: Wall of Rights
On the post: Rancher Sues CBP After Officers Install A Camera On His Private Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The FCC's 'New' Broadband Availability Map Hallucinates Broadband Competition
Re: Re:
Hating all regulation because... regulation is just dim-witted.
On the post: The FCC's 'New' Broadband Availability Map Hallucinates Broadband Competition
Re: 250 Mbps? Comcast?
It looks like the whole thing is generalized and averaged for an area.
On the post: Trump Blames School Shootings On Violent Video Games, Movies; Suggests We Need Some Sort Of Rating System For Them
Re: Video games are demonstrably linked to firearms violence
On the post: Court Destroys Future Public Art Installations By Holding Building Owner Liable For Destroying This One
Re:
The car analogy isn't even a close comparison.
On the post: Disney's Stupid Lawsuit Against Redbox Results In Judge Saying Disney Is Engaged In Copyright Misuse
Re:
On the post: Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Nothing?
Guns and video games are not the root cause. But the root cause is far harder to treat and doesn't rally the masses like a good false scare can.
On the post: Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games
Re: Re: Re: Nothing?
On the post: Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games
Re: Nothing?
Exactly this. My kids didn't get to play any violent games until age 18 when, whaddya know, their interest in doing so simply wasn't present. Yes, this is anecdotal but
is total bullshit.
On the post: German Court Says Facebook's Real Names Policy Violates Users' Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No magic wand necessary
Wrestle with the larger problem in as many small pieces as you like. The problem with "Rich's" argument is that it is not based in reality. The real issue has nothing to do with individual problem reports but in detecting objectionable content before the wrong person does and you get sued for it. That's a vastly different problem statement than "handle a volume of complaints".
"Rich" also assumes, with a very high degree of possibility he is entirely wrong, that Facebook does not already have a good individual complaint handling system. That system has done nothing to save them from becoming a target of many governments around the world.
It seems clear that "Rich" works for small to mid-sized businesses with a dramatically smaller footprint than Facebook. The business fundamentally changes with global exposure/popularity as must the infrastructure that supports it. The economics are completely different. The same rules cannot apply because technology isn't powerful enough to scale beyond a certain threshold and economics prevent being able to attempt to scale beyond that threshold. It's an asymptotic curve. New approaches have to be developed which may include letting some problems work themselves out.
Basically, this whole thread is little more than hot air.
On the post: Facebook 'Security': A New VPN That's Spyware And Two-Factor Authentication That Spams You
Re: what's the newest or rising alternative for facebook
On the post: Facebook 'Security': A New VPN That's Spyware And Two-Factor Authentication That Spams You
Re: Re: Re:
That simply isn't true. They each offer their own OAuth implementations. While "login with Facebook/Google" is ubiquitous on the web they are not shared authentications. OAuth is simply a standard that allows a web site operator (and others) to offload the work of authenticating users to a 3rd party. OAuth is no less secure than regular username+password authentication*.
On the post: Facebook 'Security': A New VPN That's Spyware And Two-Factor Authentication That Spams You
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wired's Big Cover Story On Facebook Gets Key Legal Point Totally Backwards, Demonstrating Why CDA 230 Is Actually Important
Re: Re: "Good Samaritans" must be GOOD is key point. And must not be arbitrary, nor is a "provider" given full power over "users". -- It's for The Public's good, in any case, NOT the "provider" as such.
Platforms like Facebook and Twitter, even YouTube, will find it next to impossible to continue to operate at all. The costs of moderation would destroy their business model. We'll go back to the days of media being controlled entirely by media corporations, all the power back in their hands. And this fool (blue) will be partly to blame.
On the post: Wired's Big Cover Story On Facebook Gets Key Legal Point Totally Backwards, Demonstrating Why CDA 230 Is Actually Important
Re: Re: "Good Samaritans" must be GOOD is key point. And must not be arbitrary, nor is a "provider" given full power over "users". -- It's for The Public's good, in any case, NOT the "provider" as such.
On the post: FCC Broadband Availability Data Derided As Inaccurate, 'Shameful'
Re: Re: Re: Satellite
Next >>