So these are the people we've elected into office to represent us.
I don't know what's worse: that these people don't know much about technology or they can't be bothered to consult with people who do know about technology.
So, like the article said, the only purpose of this hearing was for the politicians to show their constituents that they're "doing something"!
The other problem is that too many media sites will take this hearing to mean their site is right rather than holding the politicians accountable for their inaction.
I think the issue goes back to lazy journalism and it goes something like this:
The Onion published a satire story.
A Chinese newspaper picks up the story and thinks it's real.
The Huffington Post reports that the Chinese newspaper is reporting a story.
The Washington Post reports that the Huffington Post is running a story based on a Chinese story.
So, where does the fact-checking come into it? The Washington Post relied on the Huffington Post to verify the facts and the Huffington Post assumed the Chinese newspaper did their own fact-checking.
Yet none of these people did their own research to see if the story was true and accurate.
Then this issue gets worse when there are people planting obvious misinformation that the media thinks is correct because of the "truthiness"- you know, it must be true because it sounds like it should be true.
I compare this to drinking and driving: everyone knows there are huge penalties for drinking and driving, but how many people think about it when they drink? Okay, sure, a lot of people will be responsible and call a cab or Uber, but a lot of people don't.
So it's going to be the same thing: out of the 45 million Twitter users in Japan, how many will think about the consequences when they re-tweet something? Or will people assume they can get away with it? Or will they assume there won't be much of a penalty if they get caught?
This is the perfect example of our click-bait headline, lack of reading comprehension, rush to judgement society.
When I read the headline, I immediately thought "Okay, they settled a $250 million lawsuit, I guess I'll read the article for the settlement details".
But instead, all these other people immediately thought "settled FOR $250 million" without really reading.
And look, their posts are getting attention and retweeted and so on... not bad for a lack of reading comprehension.
Let's follow up with this lady every few weeks until she tests positive for the virus. Then let's see how long it takes until she dies from it.
Yes, I know that's morbid, but I've been reading too many stories about people who refused to wear a mask (or who thought the virus is a hoax) only to die from it later.
TikTok is suddenly out of favor because it's made by (say it slowly) "Chiiiina", which is probably a supporter of "Anteeeeeefa". You know, those evil foreigners out to steal our data... and then do something with it!
I'd say that's sarcasm, but it seems like that's how too many politicians think: it's fashionable to slam foreign companies, so they'll jump on the bandwagon.
But they never finish their accusation: what exactly will TikTok or the Chinese government do with all this data? Will they sell it back to US companies? Or are politicians scared of the nebulous "collecting data"?
I like how people jump all over Twitter for removing someone's content without bothering to get the whole story.
You mean this guy was warned numerous times about the same issue, then agreed not to do it again, then did it again, and then got even more strikes his account? Oh, sure, it must be a political agenda by Twitter!
It's sort-of like how people get outraged when they hear a 10 year-old has been arrested, yet they don't read how that same 10 year-old had caused trouble over and over for the past year and an arrest was the last straw.
Plus, it's trendy right now to attack Twitter and Facebook for a perceived political bias instead of understanding the nuances of the DMCA and why these takedowns happen in the first place.
Is it time to shut down Twitter or at least move to another platform?
Between these copyright issues, the rants and threats from Trump, the trolls attacking female and African-American celebrities (and people in general), and general disinformation by bots, what good is coming out of Twitter?
For all the complaints against ContentID and how YouTube "has to do it", I don't see anyone stating the obvious: if you don't like the service, don't use it. Does Viemo and TikTik and other video sites have this issue? If they don't, why are we still using and complaining about YouTube?
If people start leaving YouTube en masse over this issue, then maybe they'll see a decline in advertising, which means less revenue, which means it'll get their attention.
But complaining and hoping something will change doesn't seem to working.
At what do Google and Facebook say "we won't link to any newspapers unless you pay us a small fee for the traffic we sent you". Maybe it's only $1 or $2 a month (far below the rate for Google Ads). And then if a newspaper doesn't want to pay, they don't get indexed and they get no traffic. There, problem solved.
Oh, and a special thanks to Spain, France, Australia, Canada, and this guy for changing Google's policies so now even small newspapers have to pay to be on Google News instead of getting traffic for free.
P.S. How come NONE, NONE of these complainers ever mention Bing, Yahoo, or DuckDuckGo? Those sites have news sections that presumably send traffic to newspapers. Or does Bing/ Microsoft not have as much money as Google? Then how about Apple News? Do they pay newspapers a fee to run snippets? Or is Apple too small to worry about?
Have and of Redflex's CEO's talked about when they'll be applying for government bailouts? After all, it's not their fault their business is failing because they can't issue more tickets. They need a handout!
"... were told it came from social media and its authenticity was unclear."
Why in the world is ANY government agency running clips when they specifically know the authenticity is unclear?
It's liking running video showing Iran's "military aircraft" that's actually a screen shot from a video game. Or showing a new ISIS "symbol" that's also from a video game.
Why in the world do people put so much stock in social media? Are we that desperate for something to valid our world-view that we can't be bothered to verify it?
Though this is the same reason some Internet rando is suddenly an expert on 5G and the coronavirus when scientists say there's no connection at all.
Modly flew from Washington DC to the ship, which is in Guam, which is 5,600 miles away, to give his speech to the crew.
Then he flew another 5,600 miles back to Washington after his speech was over!
That's it- there was no other reason for him to fly all the way to Guam and back!
So not only was his speech a waste of breath, it was a waste of tax-payer dollars!
Fact: Marvel Studios has been releasing movies since 2008.
Fact: The last Marvel movie was released in mid 2019.
Fact: The COVID-19 virus was discovered until late 2019.
Therefore, the lack of Marvel movies created the COVID-19 virus.
"Don't believe ANYTHING you read on social media!" he said in his Twitter feed. "Instead, check our Facebook page daily for updates about the virus."
So if we shouldn't believe anything on social media, why should we believe his Twitter feed or Facebook page? Why should we even believe that statement?
Here are some ideas to reduce the strain on the network:
1) Detect the device (which is fairly easy to do) and don't stream 4K or even 1080p to a mobile device.
2) Cut down or stop the ads before the videos. How much bandwidth can be saved by cutting one 10-second or 20-second ad from 2 million videos played per day? Especially then a vast majority of those ads are never interacted-with except for the Skip Ad button.
Do you not watch shows like Law & Order? The story goes like this:
Poor (usually black) guy is caught with some illegal drug and gets a public defender.
The prosecutor offers him a deal: take a plea bargain and go to jail for 5 years or risk a full trial and get 20 years.
The defendant says he can't do 20 years in jail so he takes the plea bargain.
The public defender has 200 other case so he takes the plea bargain also and doesn't bother gathering evidence like body cams.
So no wonder the cops continue to get away with altering the body cams- it's not like many defense lawyers even see it.
"How could you possibly justify the idea of “Trump forever” without pissing all over the Constitution of the United States?"
As much as I don't like to feed the trolls, I'm afraid I have to agree with that "Trump forever" rhetoric.
Keep in mind that Trump and a large number of Republicans (including Mitch McConnell) are up for re-election in November.
Now suppose they don't want to lose power and leave office. What would it take to stay there? How about canceling the election? But the Constitution says they can't? Well, then, how about a national emergency where it's not safe to leave to go outside or gather in groups? You know, like a terrorist attack or a pandemic.
Now, sure, a lot of people can do mail-in voting or absentee voting, but I'd be willing to place a large bet that Trump will use his executive power to cancel the election out of "safety". Again, it's unconstitutional, but who's going to tell him no? The Republican-led Senate that wants to stay in power? Doubtful. The House of Representatives who will bow to public pressure to "keep people safe"?
So, there you go- a recipe to cancel the elections in November.
Here's an idea: let's go with the thinking that all vaccines are bad and they cause autism.
Now let's suppose a traveller brings the coronavirus over from China.
Now let's suppose we have a vaccine against it.
Would these people take the vaccine so they don't get the coronavirus and bend their beliefs "just this once" or would they not take the vaccine to stand up for their beliefs?
Or is it a different case when they themselves could die, rather than unknown people who might die from measles, polio, and smallpox?
On the post: House Judiciary Spends 5.5 Hours Making Themselves Look Foolish, Without Asking Many Actual Tough Questions Of Tech CEOs
Ladies and gentlemen, your elected officials...
So these are the people we've elected into office to represent us.
I don't know what's worse: that these people don't know much about technology or they can't be bothered to consult with people who do know about technology.
So, like the article said, the only purpose of this hearing was for the politicians to show their constituents that they're "doing something"!
The other problem is that too many media sites will take this hearing to mean their site is right rather than holding the politicians accountable for their inaction.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Studies: Misleading Information From Official Sources (2020)
Lazy journalism
I think the issue goes back to lazy journalism and it goes something like this:
The Onion published a satire story.
A Chinese newspaper picks up the story and thinks it's real.
The Huffington Post reports that the Chinese newspaper is reporting a story.
The Washington Post reports that the Huffington Post is running a story based on a Chinese story.
So, where does the fact-checking come into it? The Washington Post relied on the Huffington Post to verify the facts and the Huffington Post assumed the Chinese newspaper did their own fact-checking.
Yet none of these people did their own research to see if the story was true and accurate.
Then this issue gets worse when there are people planting obvious misinformation that the media thinks is correct because of the "truthiness"- you know, it must be true because it sounds like it should be true.
On the post: Japan's Top Court Says 45 Million Twitter Users Must Check That Anything They Retweet Is Not A Copyright Infringement
Like drinking and driving
I compare this to drinking and driving: everyone knows there are huge penalties for drinking and driving, but how many people think about it when they drink? Okay, sure, a lot of people will be responsible and call a cab or Uber, but a lot of people don't.
So it's going to be the same thing: out of the 45 million Twitter users in Japan, how many will think about the consequences when they re-tweet something? Or will people assume they can get away with it? Or will they assume there won't be much of a penalty if they get caught?
On the post: Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia Pet Just Applied For Trademark On Jingle For Some R-R-R-Reason
Re: CVS Customer Satisfaction Survey Follow This Instruction
And how is this relevant to Chia pets or trademark?
On the post: NY Post's Journalistic Malpractice: Misleading Reporting On Nick Sandmann's Washington Post Settlement
And people wonder why click-bait headlines work
This is the perfect example of our click-bait headline, lack of reading comprehension, rush to judgement society.
When I read the headline, I immediately thought "Okay, they settled a $250 million lawsuit, I guess I'll read the article for the settlement details".
But instead, all these other people immediately thought "settled FOR $250 million" without really reading.
And look, their posts are getting attention and retweeted and so on... not bad for a lack of reading comprehension.
On the post: Woman Who Refused To Wear Mask At Starbucks Wants Half The $100k In Tip Money Barista Got From GoFundMe Campaign
Let's follow up with this lady
Let's follow up with this lady every few weeks until she tests positive for the virus. Then let's see how long it takes until she dies from it.
Yes, I know that's morbid, but I've been reading too many stories about people who refused to wear a mask (or who thought the virus is a hoax) only to die from it later.
On the post: U.S. TikTok Hysteria Teeters Toward The Idiotic
The world needed a scapegoat...
... and they chose TikTok (and Heiwai).
TikTok is suddenly out of favor because it's made by (say it slowly) "Chiiiina", which is probably a supporter of "Anteeeeeefa". You know, those evil foreigners out to steal our data... and then do something with it!
I'd say that's sarcasm, but it seems like that's how too many politicians think: it's fashionable to slam foreign companies, so they'll jump on the bandwagon.
But they never finish their accusation: what exactly will TikTok or the Chinese government do with all this data? Will they sell it back to US companies? Or are politicians scared of the nebulous "collecting data"?
On the post: Rather Than Attacking Section 230, Why Aren't Trump Supporters Angry About The DMCA That's Actually Causing Issues?
Need to know the whole story
I like how people jump all over Twitter for removing someone's content without bothering to get the whole story.
You mean this guy was warned numerous times about the same issue, then agreed not to do it again, then did it again, and then got even more strikes his account? Oh, sure, it must be a political agenda by Twitter!
It's sort-of like how people get outraged when they hear a 10 year-old has been arrested, yet they don't read how that same 10 year-old had caused trouble over and over for the past year and an arrest was the last straw.
Plus, it's trendy right now to attack Twitter and Facebook for a perceived political bias instead of understanding the nuances of the DMCA and why these takedowns happen in the first place.
On the post: Copyright Gets In The Way Of Chef Andres' 'Recipes For The People'; Because The DMCA Takedown System Is Still Broken
Time to shut down Twitter
Is it time to shut down Twitter or at least move to another platform?
Between these copyright issues, the rants and threats from Trump, the trolls attacking female and African-American celebrities (and people in general), and general disinformation by bots, what good is coming out of Twitter?
On the post: Guinness World Records People Accidentally Claiming Copyright On Tons Of 'Super Mario Bros.' Speedruns
The solution is obvious: stop using YouTube
For all the complaints against ContentID and how YouTube "has to do it", I don't see anyone stating the obvious: if you don't like the service, don't use it. Does Viemo and TikTik and other video sites have this issue? If they don't, why are we still using and complaining about YouTube?
If people start leaving YouTube en masse over this issue, then maybe they'll see a decline in advertising, which means less revenue, which means it'll get their attention.
But complaining and hoping something will change doesn't seem to working.
On the post: Hedge Fund 'Asshole' Destroying Local News & Firing Reporters Wants Google & Facebook To Just Hand Him More Money
Charge newspapers
At what do Google and Facebook say "we won't link to any newspapers unless you pay us a small fee for the traffic we sent you". Maybe it's only $1 or $2 a month (far below the rate for Google Ads). And then if a newspaper doesn't want to pay, they don't get indexed and they get no traffic. There, problem solved.
Oh, and a special thanks to Spain, France, Australia, Canada, and this guy for changing Google's policies so now even small newspapers have to pay to be on Google News instead of getting traffic for free.
P.S. How come NONE, NONE of these complainers ever mention Bing, Yahoo, or DuckDuckGo? Those sites have news sections that presumably send traffic to newspapers. Or does Bing/ Microsoft not have as much money as Google? Then how about Apple News? Do they pay newspapers a fee to run snippets? Or is Apple too small to worry about?
On the post: Red Light Camera Company Says It's Dying Of Coronavirus
Bailout time
Have and of Redflex's CEO's talked about when they'll be applying for government bailouts? After all, it's not their fault their business is failing because they can't issue more tickets. They need a handout!
On the post: Benjamin Netanyahu, Hater Of Fake News And Purveyor Of Fake News
Authenticity unclear?
"... were told it came from social media and its authenticity was unclear."
Why in the world is ANY government agency running clips when they specifically know the authenticity is unclear?
It's liking running video showing Iran's "military aircraft" that's actually a screen shot from a video game. Or showing a new ISIS "symbol" that's also from a video game.
Why in the world do people put so much stock in social media? Are we that desperate for something to valid our world-view that we can't be bothered to verify it?
Though this is the same reason some Internet rando is suddenly an expert on 5G and the coronavirus when scientists say there's no connection at all.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Travel to Guam
I think you're missing an important point:
Modly flew from Washington DC to the ship, which is in Guam, which is 5,600 miles away, to give his speech to the crew.
Then he flew another 5,600 miles back to Washington after his speech was over!
That's it- there was no other reason for him to fly all the way to Guam and back!
So not only was his speech a waste of breath, it was a waste of tax-payer dollars!
On the post: Jon Cusack The Latest Celebrity To Spread Nonsense About 5G
Let's start our own conspiracies
Fact: Marvel Studios has been releasing movies since 2008.
Fact: The last Marvel movie was released in mid 2019.
Fact: The COVID-19 virus was discovered until late 2019.
Therefore, the lack of Marvel movies created the COVID-19 virus.
On the post: Houston Police Chief Says He'll Prosecute People For False Statements About COVID-19 Response; Won't Debate 1st Amendment
Don't believe his social media
"Don't believe ANYTHING you read on social media!" he said in his Twitter feed. "Instead, check our Facebook page daily for updates about the virus."
So if we shouldn't believe anything on social media, why should we believe his Twitter feed or Facebook page? Why should we even believe that statement?
On the post: Netflix, Disney Throttle Video Streams In Europe To Handle COVID-19 Internet Strain
Reduce stream on mobile devices and reduce ads
Here are some ideas to reduce the strain on the network:
1) Detect the device (which is fairly easy to do) and don't stream 4K or even 1080p to a mobile device.
2) Cut down or stop the ads before the videos. How much bandwidth can be saved by cutting one 10-second or 20-second ad from 2 million videos played per day? Especially then a vast majority of those ads are never interacted-with except for the Skip Ad button.
On the post: Body Camera Once Again Catches An NYPD Officer Planting Drugs In Someone's Car
Re: If you're innocent, don't plead guilty.
Do you not watch shows like Law & Order? The story goes like this:
Poor (usually black) guy is caught with some illegal drug and gets a public defender.
The prosecutor offers him a deal: take a plea bargain and go to jail for 5 years or risk a full trial and get 20 years.
The defendant says he can't do 20 years in jail so he takes the plea bargain.
The public defender has 200 other case so he takes the plea bargain also and doesn't bother gathering evidence like body cams.
So no wonder the cops continue to get away with altering the body cams- it's not like many defense lawyers even see it.
On the post: Social Media Promised To Block Covid-19 Misinformation; But They're Also Blocking Legit Info Too
Re:
"How could you possibly justify the idea of “Trump forever” without pissing all over the Constitution of the United States?"
As much as I don't like to feed the trolls, I'm afraid I have to agree with that "Trump forever" rhetoric.
Keep in mind that Trump and a large number of Republicans (including Mitch McConnell) are up for re-election in November.
Now suppose they don't want to lose power and leave office. What would it take to stay there? How about canceling the election? But the Constitution says they can't? Well, then, how about a national emergency where it's not safe to leave to go outside or gather in groups? You know, like a terrorist attack or a pandemic.
Now, sure, a lot of people can do mail-in voting or absentee voting, but I'd be willing to place a large bet that Trump will use his executive power to cancel the election out of "safety". Again, it's unconstitutional, but who's going to tell him no? The Republican-led Senate that wants to stay in power? Doubtful. The House of Representatives who will bow to public pressure to "keep people safe"?
So, there you go- a recipe to cancel the elections in November.
On the post: Group Promoting 'Religious Freedom' Around Vaccines Appears To Want To Stifle Free Expression Of Critics
All vaccines are bad!
Here's an idea: let's go with the thinking that all vaccines are bad and they cause autism.
Now let's suppose a traveller brings the coronavirus over from China.
Now let's suppose we have a vaccine against it.
Would these people take the vaccine so they don't get the coronavirus and bend their beliefs "just this once" or would they not take the vaccine to stand up for their beliefs?
Or is it a different case when they themselves could die, rather than unknown people who might die from measles, polio, and smallpox?
Next >>