Even if it isn't immediately useful, more transparency would make it much harder for lawmakers to ignore to problems in the industry. Even for folks with only one option, being able to easily show why that is so bad will probably help improve their situation.
It seems like we hear about this kind of thing every week. I wonder if someone has put together a list of companies, their failure(s), and what/if they have done anything to address it since. It'd be nice to do a quick privacy/security background check on a company before entering into a contract with them.
Before, seeing the subscription option was a mark of trust. If you discover a stream you enjoy and see the sub button, you know that they hit those metrics, so you can expect them to be online often and maintain a stream worth your $5.
If too many people start using these paid methods, then there will be no trust that a sub will really be worth it. Best case scenario is it delays the purchase of a sub while the viewer waits to see if the streamer is holding up their end of the bargain. Worst case is that they just never bother (and market data shows that this is more likely).
You seem to be forgetting how long it took for the administration to put out that plan, months after it was needed, and that the President immediately contradicted those guidelines and railed against states actually following them.
And in these examples, the nightclub would only be liable for its own actions: if the staff was aware of the fight and chose to do nothing, if the staff failed to follow policy regarding the dram shop laws like checking ID or over serving a customer. These are actions or inaction of the nightclub and its staff and shows that the protections provided by Section 230 parallel those of a meatspace venue.
A nightclub is not liable for a fight breaking out, unless it facilitated the fight or it refused to respond after being notified.
A website is not liable for illegal content on its site, unless it facilitated in its creation or it refused to take down the content after being notified.
I remember when Google Fiber was still hyped up, my city was on the list of probable future deployments. A week after the announcement, I got a notification from Comcast saying that i got a free upgrade, doubling my speed.
If just a rumor of competition does that, I can only image what real competition does.
How would end-to-end encryption for DMs help in this circumstance? It sounds like they got full access to the accounts, which would give them access to DMs just like if the original user changed their email address legitimately.
Where are all the 2nd amendment people when we need them? The government is literally picking people off the street in unmarked gear. Isn't the whole point of the 2nd that the populace can protect itself from it's government if necessary?
Police would either be forced to identify themselves as such, or face the consequence of being anonymous kidnappers in the presence of armed citizens.
Oh now I get it, whenever there's a merger they always say it will increase competition. Clearly they have an intra-industry competition going on to see who can raise prices the highest. Telecom Blackjack, minus the bust.
My point here is that you are still willing to give the USA the benefit of a doubt despite actual proven abuse (AT&T, Verizon, Facebook, Cisco) but aren't willing to extend that same benefit to China because of hypothetical abuse.
The only reason you give to distrust this app is because it is Chinese, and that is some racist logic there. We can and should distrust every company that has our private data, but we should do so from a level foundation, not one tilted by racial prejudice.
(untitled comment)
Even if it isn't immediately useful, more transparency would make it much harder for lawmakers to ignore to problems in the industry. Even for folks with only one option, being able to easily show why that is so bad will probably help improve their situation.
Hall of Shame
It seems like we hear about this kind of thing every week. I wonder if someone has put together a list of companies, their failure(s), and what/if they have done anything to address it since. It'd be nice to do a quick privacy/security background check on a company before entering into a contract with them.
Re: Re: 'That sounds worthy of discussion', said the sheep to th
Why would congress care what a small tech company has to say when Facebookian campaign donations are in the room?
(untitled comment)
Wouldn't this audio be automatically in the public domain?
Quick someone remix it into a song.
Re: Re: Re:
Before, seeing the subscription option was a mark of trust. If you discover a stream you enjoy and see the sub button, you know that they hit those metrics, so you can expect them to be online often and maintain a stream worth your $5.
If too many people start using these paid methods, then there will be no trust that a sub will really be worth it. Best case scenario is it delays the purchase of a sub while the viewer waits to see if the streamer is holding up their end of the bargain. Worst case is that they just never bother (and market data shows that this is more likely).
Re: Re:
You seem to be forgetting how long it took for the administration to put out that plan, months after it was needed, and that the President immediately contradicted those guidelines and railed against states actually following them.
(untitled comment)
Actually, this kind of bullshit is exactly what I think of when AT&T comes around.
Re: Re: Re:
And in these examples, the nightclub would only be liable for its own actions: if the staff was aware of the fight and chose to do nothing, if the staff failed to follow policy regarding the dram shop laws like checking ID or over serving a customer. These are actions or inaction of the nightclub and its staff and shows that the protections provided by Section 230 parallel those of a meatspace venue.
A nightclub is not liable for a fight breaking out, unless it facilitated the fight or it refused to respond after being notified.
A website is not liable for illegal content on its site, unless it facilitated in its creation or it refused to take down the content after being notified.
Re:
Should a nightclub be held liable for the actions of its users?
Re: TechDIRT...
Yeah they should have used better terminology, something that means its good in some places and bad in others...
Maybe call it patchy? I feel like I heard that used for this somewhere.
(untitled comment)
I remember when Google Fiber was still hyped up, my city was on the list of probable future deployments. A week after the announcement, I got a notification from Comcast saying that i got a free upgrade, doubling my speed.
If just a rumor of competition does that, I can only image what real competition does.
Re: Re: 2nd Amendment
Let's just ignore your assumptions and straw men for a minute and address the part where you think you are being clever:
Care to elaborate who these "enemies" in your mind are?
Re: Re:
Thanks for the reply! That sounds like something nice to be able to opt-in for. Kind of a headache for those who change devices frequently.
(untitled comment)
How would end-to-end encryption for DMs help in this circumstance? It sounds like they got full access to the accounts, which would give them access to DMs just like if the original user changed their email address legitimately.
2nd Amendment
Where are all the 2nd amendment people when we need them? The government is literally picking people off the street in unmarked gear. Isn't the whole point of the 2nd that the populace can protect itself from it's government if necessary?
Police would either be forced to identify themselves as such, or face the consequence of being anonymous kidnappers in the presence of armed citizens.
(untitled comment)
Oh now I get it, whenever there's a merger they always say it will increase competition. Clearly they have an intra-industry competition going on to see who can raise prices the highest. Telecom Blackjack, minus the bust.
(untitled comment)
Bad defendants make bad precedent, but maybe worse defendants make good precedent?
I'd love to see DMCA 512(f) actually mean something.
Re: Re: Re:
My point here is that you are still willing to give the USA the benefit of a doubt despite actual proven abuse (AT&T, Verizon, Facebook, Cisco) but aren't willing to extend that same benefit to China because of hypothetical abuse.
The only reason you give to distrust this app is because it is Chinese, and that is some racist logic there. We can and should distrust every company that has our private data, but we should do so from a level foundation, not one tilted by racial prejudice.
Re:
Let's just assume you're right for now, how is that any different from USA?
Re: Re: Re:
If DMCA 512(f) had any teeth this kind of scamming wouldn't exist, but no one in power wants there to be any accountability in that direction.
More comments from Celyxise >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Celyxise.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt