That was fast. I think I'm going for the pdf version. Can I send it to my friends if I get it? Of course if I go to the US I'll buy the physical thing as well ;)
You know what I hate more than people bullying people with disabilities and other physical or mental issues? Perfectly healthy idiots using laws to destroy lives instead of applying reasonable punishments.
It's not certain conditions. It's adding a restriction or at least warnings on places that register a lot of accidents. I agree that the city/state/whoever in the govt are the ones that should work to fix it via engineering or better signaling of said dangers if it can't be fixed but I guess I wasn't clear when I said that Google could help its users by placing warnings or avoiding such accident hotspots. Not because someone sued or because it's a law (I hope they don't get this funny idea of making it into law) but because they want the users to be safe.
Apples to oranges. It's not automated. It's just that if something dangerous goes public and reaches Google (as it did reach) they have no obligation of doing anything but they could apply restrictions for safety purposes. It's not some ethereal copyright dispute, it's a real safety hazard. In the example of my street I don't think it's worth the effort because there are very few accidents there related to the grade or something.
While some requests seem exaggerated I do think Google could help in specific cases like this. I mean, 32% grade with such narrow crown is what I would call an exception. And I live at the top of a hill where loaded cars with more than 100hp fail to climb. In my example the traffic authority already forbids heavy vehicles there.
The point is, while I do think the city govt must adopt reasonable measures like restricting traffic during rainy days and put boards in place warning drivers of the danger Google could apply restrictions to avoid taking people unfamiliar with the area through the street. The street was built before there were rules in place that would have restricted such mind boggling grade and that crown I've read. But no seriously, when you see stuff like
You simply have to agree that Google could restrict that route to protect their users. The city shouldn't pursue any legal mechanism or lawsuit against Google but me as an user would like to see Google be more proactive when dangerous cases like this are brought to their attention. At the very least a permanent warning. (Then again maybe they already have those in place and the city is just being whinny).
While I agree with most of the post, if you look at the default privacy settings and FB account comes with you'll notice that privacy is mostly opt in. It's defaults are basically "show everything and share everything". So while Facebook isn't responsible for stuff you post publicly it could do a much better job to be clearer with its configurations. Ie: run the user through a configuration wizard explaining and asking input for each setting and making new stuff opt in.
At the very least you can be assured you won't be blocked here in TD. Also, go for another social network like Diaspora. I'm gradually abandoning some social networks. At the very least if I'm ever banned I won't be dependent on them.
"this is desperate people doing it to survive & being pushed to do more or be put out"
A portion of them is. Not all of them. This is a misconception that has to die because it's based on the notion that it's some sort of dirty, immoral type of labor. It is not.
"I've seen multiple people point out -- accurately -- that the article's focus on Facebook here is a little silly."
I disagree. These awful laws were designed precisely to go after the platforms, not to solve the real problem. We should be finding every single minor breach Facebook and friends may be incurring and make their judicial lives as expensive and hellish as possible while the law isn't stricken down due to the unconstitutional parts of it. As a deterrent for future shenanigans from dominant players who think they can handle the damage and curb competition this way.
On the post: Turns Out Lots Of People Want To Play The CIA's Card Game
On the post: State Appeals Court Upholds Criminal Conviction For Twitter Harassment Targeting An Autistic Student
On the post: Comcast-Owned MSNBC Blasted For 8 Minute 'News' Love Letter to Comcast
At first I read "sloppy love letter" (don't ask). I recommend reading it that way, makes the article way funnier.
On the post: Want To Blog In Tanzania, Or Read Social Media In Uganda? Pay The Government, Please
On the post: L.A. Lawmakers Looking To Take Legal Action Against Google For Not Solving Long-Running City Traffic Problems
Re: Re: It's software, do it over the weekend.
On the post: L.A. Lawmakers Looking To Take Legal Action Against Google For Not Solving Long-Running City Traffic Problems
Re: Re:
On the post: L.A. Lawmakers Looking To Take Legal Action Against Google For Not Solving Long-Running City Traffic Problems
Re: Re:
On the post: L.A. Lawmakers Looking To Take Legal Action Against Google For Not Solving Long-Running City Traffic Problems
The point is, while I do think the city govt must adopt reasonable measures like restricting traffic during rainy days and put boards in place warning drivers of the danger Google could apply restrictions to avoid taking people unfamiliar with the area through the street. The street was built before there were rules in place that would have restricted such mind boggling grade and that crown I've read. But no seriously, when you see stuff like
https://www.theeastsiderla.com/2009/03/baxter-street-bus-stop/
You simply have to agree that Google could restrict that route to protect their users. The city shouldn't pursue any legal mechanism or lawsuit against Google but me as an user would like to see Google be more proactive when dangerous cases like this are brought to their attention. At the very least a permanent warning. (Then again maybe they already have those in place and the city is just being whinny).
On the post: Facebook Derangement Syndrome: Don't Blame Facebook For Company Scraping Public Info
On the post: The Washington Post Thinks Overpaying For Broadband Bundles Is A Hoot
On the post: Judge Agrees: Perfectly Fine For Google To Deny Ad Placement For 'Honey Cures Cancer' Claims
Also, let him advertise, Darwin will do the rest. /s (just in case)
On the post: It's Spreading: Lindsey Graham Now Insisting 'Fairness Doctrine' Applies To The Internet
On the post: We Interrupt The News Again With Hopefully The Last Update From The Monkey Selfie Case
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The CIA Made A Card Game... And We're Releasing It
Re: Re:
On the post: The CIA Made A Card Game... And We're Releasing It
Re: Re: Re:
Oh wait, wrong game.
On the post: How Twitter Suspended The Account Of One Of Our Commenters... For Offending Himself?
Re:
On the post: Texas Revenge Porn Laws Loses Battle With First Amendment
Re: Re:
On the post: FOSTA/SESTA Passed Thanks To Facebook's Vocal Support; New Article Suggests Facebook Is Violating FOSTA/SESTA
Re:
A portion of them is. Not all of them. This is a misconception that has to die because it's based on the notion that it's some sort of dirty, immoral type of labor. It is not.
On the post: FOSTA/SESTA Passed Thanks To Facebook's Vocal Support; New Article Suggests Facebook Is Violating FOSTA/SESTA
I disagree. These awful laws were designed precisely to go after the platforms, not to solve the real problem. We should be finding every single minor breach Facebook and friends may be incurring and make their judicial lives as expensive and hellish as possible while the law isn't stricken down due to the unconstitutional parts of it. As a deterrent for future shenanigans from dominant players who think they can handle the damage and curb competition this way.
On the post: Sex Workers Set Up Their Own Social Network In Response To FOSTA/SESTA; And Now It's Been Shut Down Due To FOSTA/SESTA
Hope it's dumped on Constitutional grounds as soon as possible.
Next >>