Maybe by your definition I'm part of the problem, but I see a big difference between the level of scrutiny required for a business vs. government.
A government can imprison me, fine me, take away my business, take my passport, keep me from getting on airplanes, and kill me. It can tell me what I must and must not eat, and what drugs I must and must not take. It can tell me who I may have sex with, and how, and who I can marry. It can take away my children. It can send me and my children to war.
No business can do ANY of that.
If I don't want to deal with a business, I don't.
If I don't want to deal with the government, I ... go to prison.
So there are lots of things that I find acceptable for a business to do (because, who cares), that are NOT acceptable for a government to do.
SnapChat is a business. They have to make money somehow if they want to stay in business.
I don't have much sympathy for people who upload their personal stuff to a sharing service and then complain when their stuff gets shared.
Even in the complete absence of written ToS or contract, it seems to me the basic idea of a photo sharing service is to share photos. So nobody should be able to complain when their photos, which they voluntarily uploaded to a sharing service, get...shared.
Re: Lost a bit of respect for you for this post Techdirt
I don't see why.
Every contract is a two-way street. Both parties have to like the deal, or no deal.
SnapChat has lots of competitors. And there's nothing stopping YOU from starting your own competitor if you think you can offer a better service to customers.
If you don't like what they're offering, don't buy.
I don't see how SnapChat is any more or less "soverign" than the user, or anyone else, here.
If your photos are so effing special and valuable and secret that you are going to freak out about this, don't upload them to a photo sharing service.
I find it ironic that many of the same people who on other days complain about excessive copyright rules and terms, are the same people who complain "OMG somebody might make a few pennies off MY PHOTOS!".
Something odd has been going on for decades in the City of San Francisco.
First the citizens scream their heads off to get rules preventing anyone from building any housing.
Then they scream their heads off that the price of housing is too high. The very same people.
Well, yeah, that's what you asked for, isn't it?
Now when AirBnb tries to provide a market to use the limited housing space efficiently (putting people in spare rooms and empty apartments), they scream about that.
Yes, the ads are a bit off. But nothing compared to the citizens of SF.
Sure, getting your message out works better than *not* getting your message out.
But at some point everyone has heard your message. At that point running *more* ads doesn't buy you anything (but annoyance).
If plutocrats were buying so many ads that they were bidding up the price of ads, making it *harder* for others to buy ads, then I think you'd have an argument.
But I don't see that happening in reality. There aren't enough political ads in total to affect the price of ads in general (most ads are for cars, soap, phones, etc.).
To repeat something I've said many times before, as long as politicians are granted the power to pick winners and losers, rig markets, change the way people live their private lives, etc., etc., then the most power-hungry will continue to be the ones attracted to political office.
The US Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, had the right idea, but didn't go far enough. There must be very firm limits on what politicians are allowed to do.
They must not be allowed to violate the rights of citizens, no matter how large a vote majority they have.
The origin of the problem is that politicians have too much power, too much discretion.
We need limits on what can be done by government by use of force.
On the post: UK's Snooper's Charter Includes Mandatory Backdoors For Encryption
Re: Re:
He'd be owed royalties.
On the post: Court Has An Opportunity To Finally End The East Texas Patent Troll Docket
Re: Re:
Governments around the world don't seem to have done a very good job of providing money that has stable value.
Perhaps a for-profit provider would do better.
Or, if not, why not?
On the post: Court Has An Opportunity To Finally End The East Texas Patent Troll Docket
Re: Re: Re:
Re education, your argument makes sense regarding *payment* for education, but I don't see how it applies to *provision* of education.
Re healthcare, how does that argument not apply to all the other necessities of life? Food? Clothing? Housing? Smartphones?
On the post: Court Has An Opportunity To Finally End The East Texas Patent Troll Docket
Re: Re: Re:
Why does the profit motive corrupt only those if it doesn't corrupt the provision of other things?
What's special about those?
On the post: Court Has An Opportunity To Finally End The East Texas Patent Troll Docket
Re: Re: Re:
Don't people need those too?
Should we ban the profit motive from the provision of those too?
On the post: Stop Freaking Out About Snapchat's Terms Of Service; You Read It Wrong
Re:
A government can imprison me, fine me, take away my business, take my passport, keep me from getting on airplanes, and kill me. It can tell me what I must and must not eat, and what drugs I must and must not take. It can tell me who I may have sex with, and how, and who I can marry. It can take away my children. It can send me and my children to war.
No business can do ANY of that.
If I don't want to deal with a business, I don't.
If I don't want to deal with the government, I ... go to prison.
So there are lots of things that I find acceptable for a business to do (because, who cares), that are NOT acceptable for a government to do.
On the post: Court Has An Opportunity To Finally End The East Texas Patent Troll Docket
Re:
On the post: Court Has An Opportunity To Finally End The East Texas Patent Troll Docket
Re: Here's a toast to horrible nature that is humanity!
And try to pick another family.
Really, 95% of humanity is not as bad as you describe. It's not more than 60% that's that bad.
A good 10 or 15% of humanity is actually nice people.
You're young - take the time to meet more of the nice ones.
On the post: Stop Freaking Out About Snapchat's Terms Of Service; You Read It Wrong
Re: Re: Don't do that
I don't have much sympathy for people who upload their personal stuff to a sharing service and then complain when their stuff gets shared.
Even in the complete absence of written ToS or contract, it seems to me the basic idea of a photo sharing service is to share photos. So nobody should be able to complain when their photos, which they voluntarily uploaded to a sharing service, get...shared.
On the post: Stop Freaking Out About Snapchat's Terms Of Service; You Read It Wrong
Re: Lost a bit of respect for you for this post Techdirt
Every contract is a two-way street. Both parties have to like the deal, or no deal.
SnapChat has lots of competitors. And there's nothing stopping YOU from starting your own competitor if you think you can offer a better service to customers.
If you don't like what they're offering, don't buy.
I don't see how SnapChat is any more or less "soverign" than the user, or anyone else, here.
On the post: Stop Freaking Out About Snapchat's Terms Of Service; You Read It Wrong
Don't do that
I find it ironic that many of the same people who on other days complain about excessive copyright rules and terms, are the same people who complain "OMG somebody might make a few pennies off MY PHOTOS!".
On the post: Airbnb's Tone Deaf Ads Are Absolutely Terrible... But The Proposition They're Protesting Is Worse
Re: Re: Re: SF == idiocy?
On the post: Airbnb's Tone Deaf Ads Are Absolutely Terrible... But The Proposition They're Protesting Is Worse
SF == idiocy?
First the citizens scream their heads off to get rules preventing anyone from building any housing.
Then they scream their heads off that the price of housing is too high. The very same people.
Well, yeah, that's what you asked for, isn't it?
Now when AirBnb tries to provide a market to use the limited housing space efficiently (putting people in spare rooms and empty apartments), they scream about that.
Yes, the ads are a bit off. But nothing compared to the citizens of SF.
[BTW Mike, it's "role", not "roll".]
On the post: Larry Lessig Dumps His Promise To Resign The Presidency In An Attempt To Get People To Take His Campaign Seriously
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
But at some point everyone has heard your message. At that point running *more* ads doesn't buy you anything (but annoyance).
If plutocrats were buying so many ads that they were bidding up the price of ads, making it *harder* for others to buy ads, then I think you'd have an argument.
But I don't see that happening in reality. There aren't enough political ads in total to affect the price of ads in general (most ads are for cars, soap, phones, etc.).
On the post: Larry Lessig Dumps His Promise To Resign The Presidency In An Attempt To Get People To Take His Campaign Seriously
Re: Re: Re: Re: I rather like the idea of President Masnick
But, then, I'd rather have a random person picked out of the phone book than the average candidate that's running.
On the post: Larry Lessig Dumps His Promise To Resign The Presidency In An Attempt To Get People To Take His Campaign Seriously
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
I don't think "too much speech" is a problem.
The correct response is to respond to speech you don't like.
If you believe the voters are paying attention and thinking, it's the arguments and their credibility that count, not their volume or frequency.
And if you don't think the voters are paying attention and thinking, then why do you support democracy?
On the post: Larry Lessig Dumps His Promise To Resign The Presidency In An Attempt To Get People To Take His Campaign Seriously
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
I don't think "too much speech" is a problem.
The solution is MORE speech, not less.
On the post: Hungarian Camera Woman Filmed Tripping Refugees Plans To Sue Facebook, Refugee She Tripped
Re: It seems that those who are most concerned about their honor are those who have none.
Up next: Her right to be "forgotten".
On the post: Larry Lessig Dumps His Promise To Resign The Presidency In An Attempt To Get People To Take His Campaign Seriously
Re: Re: Re: Money Doesn't Always Win
To repeat something I've said many times before, as long as politicians are granted the power to pick winners and losers, rig markets, change the way people live their private lives, etc., etc., then the most power-hungry will continue to be the ones attracted to political office.
The US Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, had the right idea, but didn't go far enough. There must be very firm limits on what politicians are allowed to do.
They must not be allowed to violate the rights of citizens, no matter how large a vote majority they have.
The origin of the problem is that politicians have too much power, too much discretion.
We need limits on what can be done by government by use of force.
On the post: Larry Lessig Dumps His Promise To Resign The Presidency In An Attempt To Get People To Take His Campaign Seriously
Re: Shocker - NOT!
In my view, the whole Presidential Campaign dog-and-pony show is a giant circus meant to distract the public.
The fact is, it doesn't much matter who gets elected president (as long as it's not Donald Trump).
Despite what the campaigns make it sound like, presidents can't wave a magic wand and change everything. Congress has to agree.
And Congress is rigged.
Next >>