Okay, then, my default is not to take this story at face value because far too many band promotion stories are largely made up and the journalists writing them never bother to question what they are told.
If there are numbers being collected to the extent that the band knows about them, then showing us the data the band has seen itself would be of interest.
The Guardian article said this: "Twenty-four hours after the stream was shared with a fan on Facebook, the site crashed from the millions of streams, with the average user spending 2.1 hours on the site."
But there is no link to verify this. Does someone have it or is the article based on just what the band said? I've seen so many made up Internet stories to get publicity that I don't always take these sorts of things at face value.
This points out what many of us know. Government regulations are often drafted by those the regulations are meant to regulate, so the intended goal is not accomplished.
The reason I don't buy the "government bad, corporations good" argument is that I think the corporations will screw us over as much or more than governments. Silicon Valley is heading in the same direction as most corporations when they get powerful enough.
I just read this a few minutes ago.
Travis Shrugged: The creepy, dangerous ideology behind Silicon Valley’s Cult of Disruption | PandoDaily: "Given their Randian origins, we kid ourselves if we think most Disruptive businesses are fighting government bureaucracy to bring us a better deal. A Disruptive company might very well succeed in exposing government crooks lining their pockets exploiting outdated laws, but that’s only so the Disruptor can line his own pockets through the absence of those same laws."
Travis Shrugged: The creepy, dangerous ideology behind Silicon Valley’s Cult of Disruption | PandoDaily: "Given their Randian origins, we kid ourselves if we think most Disruptive businesses are fighting government bureaucracy to bring us a better deal. A Disruptive company might very well succeed in exposing government crooks lining their pockets exploiting outdated laws, but that’s only so the Disruptor can line his own pockets through the absence of those same laws."
We must stop allowing the government/law enforcement agencies to keep broadening its authority without our approval.
I would say the same thing about private companies. I don't want my data collected by them, either, unless I give permission. And make it clear to me how the data is collected, what is done with it, and how I can avoid having it collected. Better yet, give me tools that work without collecting data.
The good old USA, where you don't need papers to travel, because we already know where you are, where you are going and where you have been. From cradle to grave, we've got you covered.
Yup. Mobile is an amazing thing the way it can keep track of who you are, where you are, who your friends are, what you buy, what you view, etc.
Re: This is just a natural expansion of the current tracking...
Yes, private companies are doing it all the time. So what's the difference between government doing it and a private company doing it and then perhaps selling the info to anyone who wants to pay for it, including government?
The lab that produced the drugs causing meningitis was not only not really regulated, it was also operating unsafely. Legally where does this fall? If there are no regulations, did this company do anything wrong? (Of course I definitely think they did something wrong.) Are the company owners guilty of manslaughter? Or is there some other legal recourse against them?
We have drunk driving laws and reckless driving laws. If you break those, you face legal consequences. Should there be laws? Should anyone be held accountable for anyone else's death if they didn't actually murder them?
Should business have to be accountable to anyone? What is the nature of product liability if a company produces an unsafe product and people directly die as a result?
I'm curious how those of you who don't approve of regulations would deal with something like this.
Sterility Found Lacking at Drug Site in Meningitis Outbreak - NYTimes.com: "The compounding pharmacy blamed for a deadly national meningitis outbreak repeatedly failed to follow standard procedures to keep its facility clean and its products sterile, Massachusetts officials said Tuesday, painting a harrowing picture of a company that flouted crucial rules as it hurried to ship drugs around the country."
It would be great if no regulations are necessary, but sometimes it is worth the cost to pay for someone to be monitoring products to protect public safety. Sure, we can adopt a buyer beware attitude and in many cases it works, but when consumers have no way of knowing what is safe or isn't, then having agencies (whether public or private) to help them verify safety is valuable.
And when regulations work well, that reduces consumer decision-making because, in theory at least, all products on the market are safe.
Asbestos is another product that probably wasn't going to disappear until government regulations intervened. Asbestos was being put in a wide range of products and consumers had no idea when they were being exposed to it.
Another situation that probably requires some government oversight is pest control across national borders. Without some monitoring, we'd probably have far more invasive species coming in attached to international transportation and trade and wiping out native and commercial ecosystems. It's not the sort of situation where any one particular industry would likely monitor itself. It's kind of like fossil fuels these days. The companies that make money aren't paying for the negatives that their activities create across society.
Yes, regulations can get out of hand. But often we end up with regulations because the unregulated industries push the boundaries until someone gets hurt.
U.S. Concern Over Compounders Predates Meningitis Outbreak - NYTimes.com: "But the memo is emblematic of the industry’s frequent and often successful attempts to fend off regulators at a time when concerns are growing about the quality of compounded drugs and the uncertain provenance of their ingredients, some of which originate in China and flow through various repackagers and middlemen with little scrutiny, according to interviews with health experts and government records."
I agree that the patent system is flawed. But what always goes through my head during these discussions is who is going to get the laws changed. Sure, you could organize a citizen crusade to pressure DC, but patent reform or elimination isn't high on most voters' priorities.
Most big companies, by the time they have the money to pay for expensive lobbyists, are more concerned with issues that protect their turf than to make patent reform their primary cause.
Organizations that represent the interests of companies and individuals having to deal with trolls could mount a campaign. But again, it becomes a matter of having these organizations deciding this is one of the areas that they will focus on.
I think what is more likely to happen before the laws get changed is for courts to not to bother to hear or prosecute patent violations.
I just watched this yesterday and it talks about how states have been ignoring federal marijuana laws. It's still illegal to sell marijuana, but prosecutors aren't bothering to go after clinics and their customers.
Japan has similar "idol factories" where they manufacture (sometimes literally) pop stars, and I think I agree with you in that the execution makes me a little uncomfortable.
And they are finding ways to eliminate live performers altogether and go with cartoon characters and robots. It probably IS the future of music.
Ideally, they should rely on industry experts for advice.
This is already how most regulations are written. And that's why we have lots of bad regulations. Look at housing codes, for example. It's a good way to keep innovative homebuilders from competing with established homebuilders. A lot of innovative energy solutions have been hampered by housing codes that don't recognize unconventional construction.
The problem is that the copying can only be in one direction (from smaller entities to larger ones) since there's typically only one side of the equation that has the resources to pay for the legal ramifications of their actions.
Then that is also the problem with trying to get rid of patents. If patents benefit big companies and keep out their competition (I don't dispute this), and the big companies are the ones with the money to lobby Washington, then it is unlikely they will use that money to ask for significant patent reform.
Calling for patent elimination or reform without addressing the bigger economic and political issues in the world probably isn't going to get us very far. And that's why I've never focused on IP issues per se. I'm more interested in seeing much bigger changes and would probably start elsewhere first. Trying to get IP laws changed when the money doesn't support it is going to be a challenge.
I think the only reason we've had so much discussion about copyright laws is that a big company (Google) sees copyright as an impediment to its own business. Google wants to post content without hassles and copyright gets in the way of that. Otherwise, I don't think Google's lobbying money would bother to get involved in this issue.
Typo. I meant to say, "If something is done in public (as posting photos of girls has been), then exposing the identity of the moderator is a different degree."
Your argument amounts to saying Christian outrage is unjustified whereas feminist outrage is justified.
Where did you get that? I was using gays as an example because you have been doing so. If something is done in private and it is outed, that is invasion of privacy. If something is done in public (as posting photos of girls has been), then exposing the identity of the matter is a different degree.
Let's drop the gay analogy because it doesn't work here. Moderators on websites do have a less degree of privacy in that capacity than private citizens in private behavior.
If you think that being outraged at someone’s behaviour is sufficient to make doxxing ‘ethical’ then doesn’t that make outing gay and lesbians ‘ethical’? (Nobody ever has a good answer for this.) You are not the only one in the world with a sense of outrage.
Here's how I would characterize the difference between what you are saying and what Laurel is saying. It's the degree to which you drag other people into it. What gays do at home, in their relationships, or even at a gay club presumably doesn't involve non-gays. (However, if a non-out gay person makes a pass at a homophobic person, chances are the non-out gay might get outed for doing so.)
Laurel is saying that photos were being used without permission to demean people. Hence the outrage.
There's a website posting photos of people shopping at Walmart. I haven't been to it, but I am aware of it. If the moderator of that site wants to be anonymous but if enough people are offended that someone goes to the trouble to find out and publicize the moderator, I would be okay with that. No laws broken, but if you are posting photos of people to laugh at them, I don't see any compelling reason to protect your identity. No laws broken by letting the world know who you are.
If, however, as a society we start enforcing very strict privacy laws, starting with what corporations do or don't do with data collection, I am interested. Until that time, I am going to assume privacy is in the eye of the beholder and people are going to invade it or not depending on what they choose to do and think they can get away with.
On the post: How To Use One Superfan To Spread The Word To Millions
Re: Re: Verification?
If there are numbers being collected to the extent that the band knows about them, then showing us the data the band has seen itself would be of interest.
On the post: How To Use One Superfan To Spread The Word To Millions
Verification?
But there is no link to verify this. Does someone have it or is the article based on just what the band said? I've seen so many made up Internet stories to get publicity that I don't always take these sorts of things at face value.
On the post: It Is Easy For People To Miss Disruptive Trends
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: George McGovern On Why Politicians Who Haven't Built A Business Are Bad At Regulating
This is a very relevant piece
Simon Johnson: The Dark Side of Bipartisanship - NYTimes.com: "... of the task force’s 14 members, an overwhelming majority are very close to the industry’s way of thinking."
On the post: Law Enforcement Looking To Create A Searchable Database Of Everywhere Your Vehicle Has Been
This reflects my viewpoint
I just read this a few minutes ago.
Travis Shrugged: The creepy, dangerous ideology behind Silicon Valley’s Cult of Disruption | PandoDaily: "Given their Randian origins, we kid ourselves if we think most Disruptive businesses are fighting government bureaucracy to bring us a better deal. A Disruptive company might very well succeed in exposing government crooks lining their pockets exploiting outdated laws, but that’s only so the Disruptor can line his own pockets through the absence of those same laws."
On the post: George McGovern On Why Politicians Who Haven't Built A Business Are Bad At Regulating
I'll add this to the mix
On the post: Law Enforcement Looking To Create A Searchable Database Of Everywhere Your Vehicle Has Been
Re: Re:
I would say the same thing about private companies. I don't want my data collected by them, either, unless I give permission. And make it clear to me how the data is collected, what is done with it, and how I can avoid having it collected. Better yet, give me tools that work without collecting data.
On the post: Law Enforcement Looking To Create A Searchable Database Of Everywhere Your Vehicle Has Been
Re: Re:
Yup. Mobile is an amazing thing the way it can keep track of who you are, where you are, who your friends are, what you buy, what you view, etc.
On the post: Law Enforcement Looking To Create A Searchable Database Of Everywhere Your Vehicle Has Been
Re: This is just a natural expansion of the current tracking...
On the post: George McGovern On Why Politicians Who Haven't Built A Business Are Bad At Regulating
Where does something like this fall?
We have drunk driving laws and reckless driving laws. If you break those, you face legal consequences. Should there be laws? Should anyone be held accountable for anyone else's death if they didn't actually murder them?
Should business have to be accountable to anyone? What is the nature of product liability if a company produces an unsafe product and people directly die as a result?
I'm curious how those of you who don't approve of regulations would deal with something like this.
Sterility Found Lacking at Drug Site in Meningitis Outbreak - NYTimes.com: "The compounding pharmacy blamed for a deadly national meningitis outbreak repeatedly failed to follow standard procedures to keep its facility clean and its products sterile, Massachusetts officials said Tuesday, painting a harrowing picture of a company that flouted crucial rules as it hurried to ship drugs around the country."
On the post: George McGovern On Why Politicians Who Haven't Built A Business Are Bad At Regulating
Re: Re: Businesses that don't police themselves
And when regulations work well, that reduces consumer decision-making because, in theory at least, all products on the market are safe.
Asbestos is another product that probably wasn't going to disappear until government regulations intervened. Asbestos was being put in a wide range of products and consumers had no idea when they were being exposed to it.
Another situation that probably requires some government oversight is pest control across national borders. Without some monitoring, we'd probably have far more invasive species coming in attached to international transportation and trade and wiping out native and commercial ecosystems. It's not the sort of situation where any one particular industry would likely monitor itself. It's kind of like fossil fuels these days. The companies that make money aren't paying for the negatives that their activities create across society.
On the post: George McGovern On Why Politicians Who Haven't Built A Business Are Bad At Regulating
Businesses that don't police themselves
U.S. Concern Over Compounders Predates Meningitis Outbreak - NYTimes.com: "But the memo is emblematic of the industry’s frequent and often successful attempts to fend off regulators at a time when concerns are growing about the quality of compounded drugs and the uncertain provenance of their ingredients, some of which originate in China and flow through various repackagers and middlemen with little scrutiny, according to interviews with health experts and government records."
On the post: Why Hardware Patent Trolls May Be The Next Big Problem
But who will fund the fight?
Most big companies, by the time they have the money to pay for expensive lobbyists, are more concerned with issues that protect their turf than to make patent reform their primary cause.
Organizations that represent the interests of companies and individuals having to deal with trolls could mount a campaign. But again, it becomes a matter of having these organizations deciding this is one of the areas that they will focus on.
I think what is more likely to happen before the laws get changed is for courts to not to bother to hear or prosecute patent violations.
I just watched this yesterday and it talks about how states have been ignoring federal marijuana laws. It's still illegal to sell marijuana, but prosecutors aren't bothering to go after clinics and their customers.
Medical Marijuana: Will Colorado's "green rush" last? - 60 Minutes - CBS News
On the post: Trent Reznor Talks To Techdirt About His Unconventional New Record Deal, And Why He Still Loves DIY
Re: Re:
Which is why it's time to look at different subjects now. The "labels are bad" story is old.
On the post: Korean Music Industry Embraces The Future While US Counterparts Fight It
Re: Re:
And they are finding ways to eliminate live performers altogether and go with cartoon characters and robots. It probably IS the future of music.
On the post: George McGovern On Why Politicians Who Haven't Built A Business Are Bad At Regulating
Re: It's really a more widespread problem
This is already how most regulations are written. And that's why we have lots of bad regulations. Look at housing codes, for example. It's a good way to keep innovative homebuilders from competing with established homebuilders. A lot of innovative energy solutions have been hampered by housing codes that don't recognize unconventional construction.
On the post: Nobel Prize Winning Economist Eric Maskin: In Highly Innovative Industries, It May Be Better To Scrap Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let me toss this out
Then that is also the problem with trying to get rid of patents. If patents benefit big companies and keep out their competition (I don't dispute this), and the big companies are the ones with the money to lobby Washington, then it is unlikely they will use that money to ask for significant patent reform.
Calling for patent elimination or reform without addressing the bigger economic and political issues in the world probably isn't going to get us very far. And that's why I've never focused on IP issues per se. I'm more interested in seeing much bigger changes and would probably start elsewhere first. Trying to get IP laws changed when the money doesn't support it is going to be a challenge.
I think the only reason we've had so much discussion about copyright laws is that a big company (Google) sees copyright as an impediment to its own business. Google wants to post content without hassles and copyright gets in the way of that. Otherwise, I don't think Google's lobbying money would bother to get involved in this issue.
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: free speech, privacy and law
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re: Re: Re: Re: free speech, privacy and law
Where did you get that? I was using gays as an example because you have been doing so. If something is done in private and it is outed, that is invasion of privacy. If something is done in public (as posting photos of girls has been), then exposing the identity of the matter is a different degree.
Let's drop the gay analogy because it doesn't work here. Moderators on websites do have a less degree of privacy in that capacity than private citizens in private behavior.
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re: Re: free speech, privacy and law
Here's how I would characterize the difference between what you are saying and what Laurel is saying. It's the degree to which you drag other people into it. What gays do at home, in their relationships, or even at a gay club presumably doesn't involve non-gays. (However, if a non-out gay person makes a pass at a homophobic person, chances are the non-out gay might get outed for doing so.)
Laurel is saying that photos were being used without permission to demean people. Hence the outrage.
There's a website posting photos of people shopping at Walmart. I haven't been to it, but I am aware of it. If the moderator of that site wants to be anonymous but if enough people are offended that someone goes to the trouble to find out and publicize the moderator, I would be okay with that. No laws broken, but if you are posting photos of people to laugh at them, I don't see any compelling reason to protect your identity. No laws broken by letting the world know who you are.
If, however, as a society we start enforcing very strict privacy laws, starting with what corporations do or don't do with data collection, I am interested. Until that time, I am going to assume privacy is in the eye of the beholder and people are going to invade it or not depending on what they choose to do and think they can get away with.
Next >>