Yeah, and Techdirt uses the Internet, so... nationalize Techdirt!
(Also all newspapers, radio stations, trucking companies who use public roads, airlines who use air traffic control, factories which are defended by the US Army, etc.)
Actually, this system was tried in a number of countries. Around 1991 they all gave up on it.
Re: Efficiency isn't always the most valuable thing in the world
"Jobs that aren't replaced anywhere else in the economy and will never come back."
Why wouldn't the jobs be replaced? If the book buyers save $100 because of efficiency, that's $100 more in their pockets to spend on something else.
The replacement jobs come from producing the "something else".
At the end of the day, society gets the same books that were being produced before, plus the extra "something else".
Yes, change is painful sometimes, and it is reasonable to think about the temporary costs of change, and maybe even to cushion that temporary pain. But we have to look at the long-term benefits vs. the short-term costs.
Does the story outweigh the fallout from the removal of anonymity?
It depends on who is doing the outing.
If a blog promises anonymity and then doesn't honor it, that is a huge problem, and in my view unacceptable. (Special cases such as a anti-anonymity politician perhaps excepted.)
If a 3rd party (a newspaper reporter, whatever) finds out independently and does the outing (without a leak from the blog), that's 100% OK with me.
In my view it's a matter of contractual and moral obligation - in one case a promise is being broken, in the other it's not.
Reminds me of the requests we get where I work. We are majority owned by a woman, but compete on quality and value - we've no interest in being a charity case.
Customer: "Are you a woman-owned company?"
Us: Yes. [as if it matters...]
Customer: "Show us your certification paperwork to prove it."
Us: Um, the owner is , who I assure you is female. We don't have any paperwork. I can send you her photo, or you can talk to her.
Customer: "That's not good enough".
Us: We are selling goods and services, not the gender of our owners. Paperwork costs money and time. Do you want to buy or not?
OK, I think you've convinced me. This was wrong because it was intended to produce science instead of benefit the users.
But it's a very fine line - by that criterion, the same experiment would have been OK if the A/B test intent had been to find the best algorithm to make the users happier (surely that is directly related to users' interests).
[But I agree - FB does worse things than this that people don't complain much about.]
If there was actual deception involved, I'd agree with you - totally unacceptable.
But unless I misunderstood (of course possible), all they did was bias which of various legitimate postings by friends they chose to show.
It's not like they promised to show ALL the friend's postings in the first place - they've been selective all along. All they did was bias the selection criteria.
I really don't see the problem. But it does seem I'm the odd one out here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You draw the line at a risk of ANY harm
Well, then, what about my smile/frown experiment?
Surely there is SOME risk of harm from every interaction we have with other people every day - whether we smile or frown, are polite or impolite, hurried or relaxed.
On the other hand, maybe somebody who was going to suicide get lots of positive messages and decided not to.
We should be careful before screaming about very minor marginal effects on large numbers of people - there are a million variables that affect us every day, fiddling with just one is unlikely to cause major changes to any individual (as opposed to tiny changes across a population, visible only with statistical analysis).
Suppose I run a little personal "experiment" - one day I smile at everyone I meet; the next day I frown. I note the reactions.
On the post: ISP Sues Former Customer Over Reviews Claiming His Internet Speed Was Less Than A Third Of What Was Advertised
Re: We send a technician to check his lines
The problem was Peek's peering to the greater Internet.
Unless the ISP is totally incompetent, they already knew what the problem was. They just didn't want to do anything about it.
On the post: FISA Court Judges Keep Buying Verizon Stock; Wonder What They Know...
New Hampshire
Not a notably corrupt place.
On the post: Internet Industry Hate Taken To Insane Levels: Ridiculous Proposals To 'Nationalize' Successful Internet Companies
Nationalize Techdirt!
(Also all newspapers, radio stations, trucking companies who use public roads, airlines who use air traffic control, factories which are defended by the US Army, etc.)
Actually, this system was tried in a number of countries. Around 1991 they all gave up on it.
Didn't work out well.
On the post: Internet Industry Hate Taken To Insane Levels: Ridiculous Proposals To 'Nationalize' Successful Internet Companies
Re: Re:
Suppose I'm a Toyota dealer.
For each car I import from Japan, I pay, say $20,000.
Each car I sell in the US for $22,000.
By that rule, I now owe US taxes on $22,000 of "profits".
Even tho I only made $2000 on the deal.
Seems like you've got a plan to basically outlaw all international trade.
On the post: France Passes Anti-Amazon Law Eliminating Free Shipping; Amazon Responds With 0.01 Euro Shipping Fees
Re: Re: Re: Efficiency isn't always the most valuable thing in the world
_Somebody_ has more in their pocket. And that money has to be spent somehow, eventually (there is nothing else you can do with money but spend it).
When it's spent, it's spent on stuff that wasn't being produced before.
On the post: Latest CAFC Ruling Suggests A Whole Lot Of Software Patents Are Likely Invalid
Maybe I misunderstand, but this is almost Richard Stallman's dream ruling - it more or less says "algorithms can't be patented".
If so, that would invalidate a ton of stuff, including methods for audio and video coding (MPEG, H.26x, etc.).
Not to mention most of my own patents (too late; I mentioned them). [A price I'm happy to pay for freedom to innovate.]
While I'd love to see this ruling upheld, I'm pessimistic that it will be - seems like too many connected people will scream.
So, either I'm misinterpreting the meaning of this ruling (quite possible), or the next few days will be really interesting as people react to it.
On the post: NYPD Tells Brooklyn Officers To Continue Making Low-Level Drug Arrests DA Has Stated He Won't Prosecute
Re: The officer writes up the ticket, confiscates the weed, and calls it a day
When I get a speeding ticket, the cop usually says something like "I clocked you at 79, but I'm going to write you up for only 74".
So, this will be "Looks like you got 3 ounces here, but I'm going to write you up for just 1". Because he's a nice guy and giving you a break.
And putting the other 2 ounces in his pocket.
On the post: France Passes Anti-Amazon Law Eliminating Free Shipping; Amazon Responds With 0.01 Euro Shipping Fees
Re: Efficiency isn't always the most valuable thing in the world
Why wouldn't the jobs be replaced? If the book buyers save $100 because of efficiency, that's $100 more in their pockets to spend on something else.
The replacement jobs come from producing the "something else".
At the end of the day, society gets the same books that were being produced before, plus the extra "something else".
Yes, change is painful sometimes, and it is reasonable to think about the temporary costs of change, and maybe even to cushion that temporary pain. But we have to look at the long-term benefits vs. the short-term costs.
On the post: FTC Goes After Amazon For Kids' In App Purchases As Apple Begs FTC To Go After Google As Well
Re: Re: Re: Re: We're not talking about parents not watching their kids here.
He has his own Google account, which doesn't have my credit card on it.
I don't see the problem.
On the post: Local Blog Outs Local Politician's Crazy But Anonymous Comments. So...Is That Okay?
It depends
It depends on who is doing the outing.
If a blog promises anonymity and then doesn't honor it, that is a huge problem, and in my view unacceptable. (Special cases such as a anti-anonymity politician perhaps excepted.)
If a 3rd party (a newspaper reporter, whatever) finds out independently and does the outing (without a leak from the blog), that's 100% OK with me.
In my view it's a matter of contractual and moral obligation - in one case a promise is being broken, in the other it's not.
On the post: IRS Rejects Non-Profit Status For Open Source Organization, Because Private Companies Might Use The Software
Re: Re: Re:
We prefer to compete with the boys on quality and value, without special preference based on the shape of somebody's genitals.
(A very old fashioned attitude, I know...)
On the post: Obama To Appoint Pharma Patent Lawyer, Who Has Fought Against Any Patent Reform, To Head Patent Office
Re: Re: Mumbo Jumbo
On the post: IRS Rejects Non-Profit Status For Open Source Organization, Because Private Companies Might Use The Software
Re:
Reminds me of the requests we get where I work. We are majority owned by a woman, but compete on quality and value - we've no interest in being a charity case.
Customer: "Are you a woman-owned company?"
Us: Yes. [as if it matters...]
Customer: "Show us your certification paperwork to prove it."
Us: Um, the owner is , who I assure you is female. We don't have any paperwork. I can send you her photo, or you can talk to her.
Customer: "That's not good enough".
Us: We are selling goods and services, not the gender of our owners. Paperwork costs money and time. Do you want to buy or not?
On the post: Obama To Appoint Pharma Patent Lawyer, Who Has Fought Against Any Patent Reform, To Head Patent Office
Re: Just like the FCC, huh?
It just seems that he's in so far over his head.
His heart is often in the right place, but he seems to have no clue what his own administration is up to.
Either that, or he's some kind of evil robotic mastermind from outer space. Hard to say.
On the post: Facebook Messed With The Emotions Of 689,003 Users... For Science
Re: Re: Re: Re: A though experiment
But it's a very fine line - by that criterion, the same experiment would have been OK if the A/B test intent had been to find the best algorithm to make the users happier (surely that is directly related to users' interests).
[But I agree - FB does worse things than this that people don't complain much about.]
On the post: Facebook Messed With The Emotions Of 689,003 Users... For Science
Re: Re: A though experiment
But unless I misunderstood (of course possible), all they did was bias which of various legitimate postings by friends they chose to show.
It's not like they promised to show ALL the friend's postings in the first place - they've been selective all along. All they did was bias the selection criteria.
I really don't see the problem. But it does seem I'm the odd one out here.
On the post: Facebook Messed With The Emotions Of 689,003 Users... For Science
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You draw the line at a risk of ANY harm
Surely there is SOME risk of harm from every interaction we have with other people every day - whether we smile or frown, are polite or impolite, hurried or relaxed.
I don't think zero-tolerance works here.
On the post: Facebook Messed With The Emotions Of 689,003 Users... For Science
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that just serves to illustrate that this is not a hard-and-fast thing, but something that requires judgement to decide how much is too much.
I think most people would agree that my smile/frown experiment is OK, yet that your suicide experiment is not OK.
In between is a grey area; what is acceptable becomes a matter of opinion and debate.
Personally I don't think FB went over the line, but I agree that reasonable people can differ over it.
On the post: Facebook Messed With The Emotions Of 689,003 Users... For Science
A though experiment
In cooperation with a university studying moot, they seed clouds to cause rain in area A one day, while it's sunny in area B.
Another time, they reverse - rain in B, while sunny in A.
Then measure something to gauge happiness/sadness to find out if it correlates with weather.
Would we be equally upset? Why or why not?
On the post: Facebook Messed With The Emotions Of 689,003 Users... For Science
Re: Re:
We should be careful before screaming about very minor marginal effects on large numbers of people - there are a million variables that affect us every day, fiddling with just one is unlikely to cause major changes to any individual (as opposed to tiny changes across a population, visible only with statistical analysis).
Suppose I run a little personal "experiment" - one day I smile at everyone I meet; the next day I frown. I note the reactions.
Have I done something horrible? I think not.
Next >>