Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Aug 2020 @ 8:46am
Re: Re: Curiosity
My understanding is only one infrastructure is necessary as the ability to let multiple ISP's offer their services is well established, with the right setup. Infrastructure does not need competition, it does need to be built (without undue interference, digging holes is hard enough) and maintenance. Services provided over the infrastructure is where the competition is needed.
But as you point out, cable vs phone lines vs fiber is where the incumbents have been placing their bets, and while they have achieved their goals (monopolies for their particular infrastructure configuration) it is the wrong way to run the industry, at least if we take the consumers point of view first.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Aug 2020 @ 7:36am
Curiosity
Let's try a hypothetical (or two). Both assume that there is an election in November, that Trump doesn't win and actually vacates the office after many tantrums, and the new administration is both reasonable and for the people (I did say hypothetical).
How would, or could, the FCC go about reasserting their authority over broadband and the companies that provide them (and maybe even preventing future FCC's from going down this rabbit hole again)? Add in potential crossovers to number 2 below.
How would, or could, the FTC go about fixing the non-competitive nightmare that currently exists and achieve a minimum of 3 (more would be better) available choices in each and every market? Breaking up the monsters into regional sections a la AT&T obviously didn't work and won't work again, so any breakup would have to have bits and pieces of the existing monsters competing with other bits and pieces of the existing monsters, but in such a manner that each has at least the potential to succeed (take the organizational chart and split each department into three pieces with like capabilities and assets). Oh, and a moratorium (several centuries long) on future consolidation.
As an addendum, suggestions as to helping me awake from this dream. I swear, the only drug I take is aspirin, for my heart condition, so suggesting the stopping of hallucinogenics wouldn't be of help.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Aug 2020 @ 1:31pm
Re: 'Who cares if people die, I need to graduate!'
Is it that teens are as mindless as Government, or the other way around?
In theory, people in Government have achieved sufficient life experience to know about and practice reason, though as we all know ideology sometimes (often?) gets in the way of reason. High school students don't have those same resources, though in their minds, ideology (me, me, me, me) is still in play.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Aug 2020 @ 10:36am
Maybe it's just Google
I have recently (last week or two) been running into captchas just to view some pages. I don't think these captchas were put up by the page owners, because why would they? I wasn't logging in or trying to comment, just viewing the page. Then there was the time where I had the page open, a page that allows comments, and when I refreshed the page to see new comments, I got the captcha. It makes me wonder if someone is attacking Google by making them look nefarious?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Aug 2020 @ 8:25am
Safe Internet is the antithesis of what they want
Fixing Internet infrastructure to make it more secure would have an adverse effect on the ability of the various 3 letter agencies to glean their nefarious bits. Those nefarious bits help to identify freedom loving peons who present a danger to the control freaks running this here hotel, and keeps 'enforcers' busy. No matter how much they say they want a safe Internet, they don't really, or they wouldn't be so up front about messing with encryption (that they absolutely know will be harmful, but deny that they know that because it suits their actual purpose).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Aug 2020 @ 1:03pm
Re: A law to protect the government from being overthrown
"Laws to protect the government from being overthrown are downright craven for a system that presumes the population will be adult and civically engaged."
Then there's the whole 'government of the people by the people' thingy. Do they overthrow themselves or their elected officials (which someone might argue happens every time one doesn't get reelected, or Trump in mid November) or just the bureaucrats?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Aug 2020 @ 12:20pm
Re: Re:
If a fight starts, and the management doesn't control it well enough, and some bystander gets hurt, you can bet some insurance company will sure try. Then there are the dram shop laws, which can have a devastating impact on not only an establishment, but their employees as well. There are some things in meatspace where liability is different, but they aren't limited to speech, like the Internet is.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Aug 2020 @ 12:05pm
Make it happen, it will be fun to watch
What happens if one doesn't pay the fine imposed by the ticket? Things escalate. At some point they either drop the charges or it goes to court. I realize this would be time consuming and expensive, but if just one ticket receiver was willing, and there was assistance from some kindly lawyers (the ACLU doesn't seem to stand for much other than wokeness these days) willing to go the distance, the Constitutional challenge could be produced.
Any likely candidates who live in San Diego might go practice their George Carlin 7 words you can't say on TV imitation near some police officers to get the ball rolling. Any San Diego lawyers up for a good Constitutional challenge?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Aug 2020 @ 4:38pm
Re: Optional
Because 'puritans' wish to control you. They wish that everybody had the same morals as them, and if you don't they will impose their morals upon you.
This 'control of others' thing is almost as absolute as 'absolute power'. They seem to go hand in hand, but does one begat the other or is it the other that begat's the one?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Aug 2020 @ 9:06am
Re: Re:
You can say anything you want. You don't have an absolute right to use other peoples property to do so. Platforms are owned by other people (including this one, though they choose to use a different moderation method than Facebook or Twitter or YouTube).
Start your own blog, say what you want and no one can tell you you can't, though if what you have to say isn't very interesting, don't expect much of a audience. Your right to say what you want does not include forcing people to listen, and could backfire as other people might ridicule your statements. Then again, you could become a new hero, to some.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Aug 2020 @ 7:51pm
Re: Re: Re:
Where does it say that platforms must be balanced? Cite actual laws including the relevant Title, Chapter, Section and Sub Section. Quoting Trump or any of his minions, or for that matter any other politician who feels slighted does not count. They are the government, and by definition are not allowed to 'censure'. Or argue censorship, though they often cannot help themselves as they don't actually seem to know the current law.
But platforms are allowed to (and whether I agree that TOS's are legal binding contracts that have not been negotiated is a different argument) apply their TOS's. If any contributor to a platform violates the TOS, then they may be sanctioned, whether that is a temporary, single post, or permanent ban is up to the platform. Whether or not the poster agrees with the decision is (unfortunately simply because the systems to object are currently unworkable) irrelevant. It is the platforms decision and the poster does not actually have anything to say about it (again, unfortunately because the objection systems don't work as they should).
And to go a bit further, read you some more Techdirt. Those decisions don't appear to be political, at least to anyone who uses logic and reason rather than ideology as a cornerstone. Look at all the trash political speech that is allowed (see most of Trumps tweets). Those decisions are based upon the platforms reading of the TOS and since they wrote the TOS (without any user input, which may or may not be a problem) they get to interpret them. Users don't, but courts might. In that case the TOS would simply be changed, again, and without user input (possibly, in the long run, to the platforms ruin).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Aug 2020 @ 6:01pm
Re:
Where does it say that platforms must be politically unbiased? Please don't quote anything Trump, or anyone in his political sphere.
Now whether a platform should be honest about their political bent is up to the platform, and the users who accept that bent, or not (when the should stop being users), or whether the platform actually elucidates their political bent.
No matter which, bent expressed or not, it is none of the governments business, unless they decide to use the platform for their own political reasons. Then they can only say that they have different views, rather than doing anything about taking down any view expressed on the platform, which tend to come from users.
Expression of a political view via moderation choices are the opinion of the observer, rather than an expression of the platform. One needs to look at the reasons for moderation choices, rather than the fact of moderation. Violations of terms of service are not political decisions, no matter how much someone else maintains they are.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Aug 2020 @ 5:23pm
Prurientitis
Naked breasts (female) are not illegal around the world. Some countries have topless/naked beaches and are not inflicted by such prurient interests. Some countries allow the publication of nudes in publicly available periodicals, widely available to the public, of all ages, though topless rather than full frontal nudes seems to be the norm. Then, of course there are the publicly available porn publications, which are not illegal in many places, but are in some.
Several things to consider, the first is that the naked breast (female) is the first feeding station for most children. The second is that for some reason the naked (female) breast is considered erotic to some males (being male I am not sure how this translates to the female of the species, or in all markets). The third is that with sufficient hormones the male breast can be enhanced to look like a female breast, though I am not sure that it performs the same function (feeding babies, while the erotic nature to males is another story).
My conclusion is that there are puritanical persons who desire that there should be no naked breasts (female, though given the above why do they discriminate?) or full nudity shown anywhere, anytime, and that they for some reason have control of something, whether that something is a piece of the current 'cancel culture' or are merely a part of the 'new woke' cadre I am not sure they speak for any majority. They may scream their abhorrence, and they are entitled to that, but they should not actually be able to impact the rest of us with any of their ideology, unless they obtain a majority in each and every constituency they attack, which seems to be everywhere.
For myself, I am not bothered by a naked breast (or full frontal nudity), and for some unknown reason do find them mildly erotic, I don't think that most of my acquaintances are bothered (either male or female) by that, and some go out of their way (both male and female) to flaunt their attributes in the interest of interesting the opposite sex. I don't see this as wrong, though I suspect that the methodology for creating interest in the opposite sex has meandered over the years.
The question is, especially for the prurient minded, what the hell business is it of yours what I think or don't think? You won't change me, no matter what you do. Nor will you change others. So why try? You make a nuisance of yourselves, and create animosity from those who disagree, and there seems to be more of the disagree variety than the agree variety. The Catholic Church failed to get me to agree to the concept of 'Original Sin', and I think many others who took logic and reason in place of dogma, even at the age of seven (though my mother disagreed with me and forced me to 'follow' until she no longer had control).
If disruption is their goal, they have achieved that, but in the long run, once people and organizations (a.k.a. companies) realize that bowing to the vocal minority is not necessary for their long term well being and they may get along with their business as usual, so long as their policies don't actually hurt some (potentially small) portions of the population. Being open to all the peoples of the world is a good thing. Being forced to acquiesce to some demands by some isn't. The variety of 'ism's' is large, and some of the harms are large, but the reverse could be the antithesis of a solution. For example:
So if you say you aren't racist, you are, and if you say you are racist you are, and for some the only solution is a final (as in death, though we will take all of your assets instead) one. Same goes for all other 'ism's'.
The only way to stand up to these whiners is to stand up to them. The question is how to do so in the moderation space where any 'question' of your intent is a 'serious problem' (from a PR standpoint, which tend to be short term if dealt with correctly) is to not accept questions unless they have some level of veracity (volume might be one factor, sensibility might be another though how to set standards for sensibility in this day and age might be problematic).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Aug 2020 @ 4:09pm
Re:
Making it worse, how does one model the impact of disinformation, like that espoused by our Leaderist in Chief (a supposition assumed by him and him only)? Was it accepted? Was it effective? How about other espouser's of disinformation, as they perceive the economy more important than human lives. Where in the models is disinformation taking place? There is no question that it should, the question is what is considered disinformation, how much value should be applied to that disinformation, either positive or negative?
Then, who makes that decision? Not the White House...I hope.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Aug 2020 @ 10:25am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems they allow you to change your phone number after the authentication, to anything. In this way one could use a friends phone to get the sms, and then go in and change the number to that of the White House. Doesn't quite make sense to me.
On the post: Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers
Re: Re: Curiosity
My understanding is only one infrastructure is necessary as the ability to let multiple ISP's offer their services is well established, with the right setup. Infrastructure does not need competition, it does need to be built (without undue interference, digging holes is hard enough) and maintenance. Services provided over the infrastructure is where the competition is needed.
But as you point out, cable vs phone lines vs fiber is where the incumbents have been placing their bets, and while they have achieved their goals (monopolies for their particular infrastructure configuration) it is the wrong way to run the industry, at least if we take the consumers point of view first.
On the post: Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers
Re: Re: Curiosity
I think I have taken a deep enough dive into fantasy, but thank you for the suggestion. Another time, for other reasons...maybe but not likely.
On the post: Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers
Re:
Likely when the end of the universe is both definable and in sight.
On the post: Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers
Curiosity
Let's try a hypothetical (or two). Both assume that there is an election in November, that Trump doesn't win and actually vacates the office after many tantrums, and the new administration is both reasonable and for the people (I did say hypothetical).
How would, or could, the FCC go about reasserting their authority over broadband and the companies that provide them (and maybe even preventing future FCC's from going down this rabbit hole again)? Add in potential crossovers to number 2 below.
As an addendum, suggestions as to helping me awake from this dream. I swear, the only drug I take is aspirin, for my heart condition, so suggesting the stopping of hallucinogenics wouldn't be of help.
On the post: Paulding County High School Un-Suspends Student But Can't Un-Infect Students Who Got COVID-19
Re:
Why aren't you more mad at the officious jackholes who ordered them to school in an unsafe manner?
Which is 1st Amendment protected activity, whether the schools like it or not.
On the post: Paulding County High School Un-Suspends Student But Can't Un-Infect Students Who Got COVID-19
Re: 'Who cares if people die, I need to graduate!'
Is it that teens are as mindless as Government, or the other way around?
In theory, people in Government have achieved sufficient life experience to know about and practice reason, though as we all know ideology sometimes (often?) gets in the way of reason. High school students don't have those same resources, though in their minds, ideology (me, me, me, me) is still in play.
On the post: Why Are There Currently No Ads On Techdirt? Apparently Google Thinks We're Dangerous
Re: Re: Maybe it's just Google
They were the same type of catpchas that I know are Google's, but I did not check the bottom of the tests. I will next time I run into this.
On the post: Why Are There Currently No Ads On Techdirt? Apparently Google Thinks We're Dangerous
Maybe it's just Google
I have recently (last week or two) been running into captchas just to view some pages. I don't think these captchas were put up by the page owners, because why would they? I wasn't logging in or trying to comment, just viewing the page. Then there was the time where I had the page open, a page that allows comments, and when I refreshed the page to see new comments, I got the captcha. It makes me wonder if someone is attacking Google by making them look nefarious?
On the post: Forget TikTok. Feebly Secured Infrastructure Is Our Real Problem
Safe Internet is the antithesis of what they want
Fixing Internet infrastructure to make it more secure would have an adverse effect on the ability of the various 3 letter agencies to glean their nefarious bits. Those nefarious bits help to identify freedom loving peons who present a danger to the control freaks running this here hotel, and keeps 'enforcers' busy. No matter how much they say they want a safe Internet, they don't really, or they wouldn't be so up front about messing with encryption (that they absolutely know will be harmful, but deny that they know that because it suits their actual purpose).
On the post: San Diego Police Officers Are Using An Old Sedition Law To Punish People For Swearing Around Cops
Re: A law to protect the government from being overthrown
Then there's the whole 'government of the people by the people' thingy. Do they overthrow themselves or their elected officials (which someone might argue happens every time one doesn't get reelected, or Trump in mid November) or just the bureaucrats?
On the post: San Diego Police Officers Are Using An Old Sedition Law To Punish People For Swearing Around Cops
Re: Re: Make it happen, it will be fun to watch
Try these for some discussion:
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2018/11/17/the-aclu-and-the-zombie-apologists/
https://blo g.simplejustice.us/2018/05/02/the-new-and-improved-aclu/
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2020/07/29/dr unken-regret-whos-responsible/
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2017/08/18/who-bought-the-aclu/
On the post: Section 230 Isn't Why Omegle Has Awful Content, And Getting Rid Of 230 Won't Change That
Re: Re:
If a fight starts, and the management doesn't control it well enough, and some bystander gets hurt, you can bet some insurance company will sure try. Then there are the dram shop laws, which can have a devastating impact on not only an establishment, but their employees as well. There are some things in meatspace where liability is different, but they aren't limited to speech, like the Internet is.
On the post: San Diego Police Officers Are Using An Old Sedition Law To Punish People For Swearing Around Cops
Make it happen, it will be fun to watch
What happens if one doesn't pay the fine imposed by the ticket? Things escalate. At some point they either drop the charges or it goes to court. I realize this would be time consuming and expensive, but if just one ticket receiver was willing, and there was assistance from some kindly lawyers (the ACLU doesn't seem to stand for much other than wokeness these days) willing to go the distance, the Constitutional challenge could be produced.
Any likely candidates who live in San Diego might go practice their George Carlin 7 words you can't say on TV imitation near some police officers to get the ball rolling. Any San Diego lawyers up for a good Constitutional challenge?
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Facebook Nudity Filter Blocks Historical Content And News Reports About The Error (June 2020)
Re: Optional
Because 'puritans' wish to control you. They wish that everybody had the same morals as them, and if you don't they will impose their morals upon you.
This 'control of others' thing is almost as absolute as 'absolute power'. They seem to go hand in hand, but does one begat the other or is it the other that begat's the one?
On the post: Moderate Globally, Impact Locally
Re: Re:
You can say anything you want. You don't have an absolute right to use other peoples property to do so. Platforms are owned by other people (including this one, though they choose to use a different moderation method than Facebook or Twitter or YouTube).
Start your own blog, say what you want and no one can tell you you can't, though if what you have to say isn't very interesting, don't expect much of a audience. Your right to say what you want does not include forcing people to listen, and could backfire as other people might ridicule your statements. Then again, you could become a new hero, to some.
On the post: Moderate Globally, Impact Locally
Re: Re: Re:
Where does it say that platforms must be balanced? Cite actual laws including the relevant Title, Chapter, Section and Sub Section. Quoting Trump or any of his minions, or for that matter any other politician who feels slighted does not count. They are the government, and by definition are not allowed to 'censure'. Or argue censorship, though they often cannot help themselves as they don't actually seem to know the current law.
But platforms are allowed to (and whether I agree that TOS's are legal binding contracts that have not been negotiated is a different argument) apply their TOS's. If any contributor to a platform violates the TOS, then they may be sanctioned, whether that is a temporary, single post, or permanent ban is up to the platform. Whether or not the poster agrees with the decision is (unfortunately simply because the systems to object are currently unworkable) irrelevant. It is the platforms decision and the poster does not actually have anything to say about it (again, unfortunately because the objection systems don't work as they should).
And to go a bit further, read you some more Techdirt. Those decisions don't appear to be political, at least to anyone who uses logic and reason rather than ideology as a cornerstone. Look at all the trash political speech that is allowed (see most of Trumps tweets). Those decisions are based upon the platforms reading of the TOS and since they wrote the TOS (without any user input, which may or may not be a problem) they get to interpret them. Users don't, but courts might. In that case the TOS would simply be changed, again, and without user input (possibly, in the long run, to the platforms ruin).
On the post: Moderate Globally, Impact Locally
Re:
Where does it say that platforms must be politically unbiased? Please don't quote anything Trump, or anyone in his political sphere.
Now whether a platform should be honest about their political bent is up to the platform, and the users who accept that bent, or not (when the should stop being users), or whether the platform actually elucidates their political bent.
No matter which, bent expressed or not, it is none of the governments business, unless they decide to use the platform for their own political reasons. Then they can only say that they have different views, rather than doing anything about taking down any view expressed on the platform, which tend to come from users.
Expression of a political view via moderation choices are the opinion of the observer, rather than an expression of the platform. One needs to look at the reasons for moderation choices, rather than the fact of moderation. Violations of terms of service are not political decisions, no matter how much someone else maintains they are.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Facebook Nudity Filter Blocks Historical Content And News Reports About The Error (June 2020)
Prurientitis
Naked breasts (female) are not illegal around the world. Some countries have topless/naked beaches and are not inflicted by such prurient interests. Some countries allow the publication of nudes in publicly available periodicals, widely available to the public, of all ages, though topless rather than full frontal nudes seems to be the norm. Then, of course there are the publicly available porn publications, which are not illegal in many places, but are in some.
Several things to consider, the first is that the naked breast (female) is the first feeding station for most children. The second is that for some reason the naked (female) breast is considered erotic to some males (being male I am not sure how this translates to the female of the species, or in all markets). The third is that with sufficient hormones the male breast can be enhanced to look like a female breast, though I am not sure that it performs the same function (feeding babies, while the erotic nature to males is another story).
My conclusion is that there are puritanical persons who desire that there should be no naked breasts (female, though given the above why do they discriminate?) or full nudity shown anywhere, anytime, and that they for some reason have control of something, whether that something is a piece of the current 'cancel culture' or are merely a part of the 'new woke' cadre I am not sure they speak for any majority. They may scream their abhorrence, and they are entitled to that, but they should not actually be able to impact the rest of us with any of their ideology, unless they obtain a majority in each and every constituency they attack, which seems to be everywhere.
For myself, I am not bothered by a naked breast (or full frontal nudity), and for some unknown reason do find them mildly erotic, I don't think that most of my acquaintances are bothered (either male or female) by that, and some go out of their way (both male and female) to flaunt their attributes in the interest of interesting the opposite sex. I don't see this as wrong, though I suspect that the methodology for creating interest in the opposite sex has meandered over the years.
The question is, especially for the prurient minded, what the hell business is it of yours what I think or don't think? You won't change me, no matter what you do. Nor will you change others. So why try? You make a nuisance of yourselves, and create animosity from those who disagree, and there seems to be more of the disagree variety than the agree variety. The Catholic Church failed to get me to agree to the concept of 'Original Sin', and I think many others who took logic and reason in place of dogma, even at the age of seven (though my mother disagreed with me and forced me to 'follow' until she no longer had control).
If disruption is their goal, they have achieved that, but in the long run, once people and organizations (a.k.a. companies) realize that bowing to the vocal minority is not necessary for their long term well being and they may get along with their business as usual, so long as their policies don't actually hurt some (potentially small) portions of the population. Being open to all the peoples of the world is a good thing. Being forced to acquiesce to some demands by some isn't. The variety of 'ism's' is large, and some of the harms are large, but the reverse could be the antithesis of a solution. For example:
So if you say you aren't racist, you are, and if you say you are racist you are, and for some the only solution is a final (as in death, though we will take all of your assets instead) one. Same goes for all other 'ism's'.
The only way to stand up to these whiners is to stand up to them. The question is how to do so in the moderation space where any 'question' of your intent is a 'serious problem' (from a PR standpoint, which tend to be short term if dealt with correctly) is to not accept questions unless they have some level of veracity (volume might be one factor, sensibility might be another though how to set standards for sensibility in this day and age might be problematic).
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 250: Modeling The Pandemic
Re:
Making it worse, how does one model the impact of disinformation, like that espoused by our Leaderist in Chief (a supposition assumed by him and him only)? Was it accepted? Was it effective? How about other espouser's of disinformation, as they perceive the economy more important than human lives. Where in the models is disinformation taking place? There is no question that it should, the question is what is considered disinformation, how much value should be applied to that disinformation, either positive or negative?
Then, who makes that decision? Not the White House...I hope.
On the post: Twitter About To Be Hit With A ~$250 Million Fine For Using Your Two Factor Authentication Phone Numbers/Emails For Marketing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems they allow you to change your phone number after the authentication, to anything. In this way one could use a friends phone to get the sms, and then go in and change the number to that of the White House. Doesn't quite make sense to me.
Next >>