I really doubt MasterCard wants to turn down revenue.
Typically these decisions are due to pressure from congresspeople or other regulators (State AGs are too small potatoes for bug international networks like MC, but, as we have seen, can hit smaller entities like backpage).
This is similar to the relations between government and the telecoms (or not -- look at Joseph Naccio).
I think Apple is indeed choosing to avoid certain (cough) content on its platforms. I really doubt MC cares.
regulation gives their decisions added weight. Financial intermediaries are in the business of making money, not curating for a particular audience, so they have less incentive to moderate than publishers.
As the example of operation choke point shows, it’s bad actors in government elected officials: senators, reps, state attorneys general) who wield the carrot and stick against the banks. Why would a bank turn down revenue?
The stick is a regulatory trade off: go after the “vice” accounts (sex, alcohol. gambling, guns) and we won’t effect more onerous regulations on you.
The carrot is typically not actually cutting these guys off but instead charging them punitive fees, so they can simultaneously show the government how they following the rules and make extra revenue.
Google should use the example of a dictionary: it can indeed be copyrighted, including the definitions, but two different dictionaries can have the same words (e.g. both can include the words "obscure", "judicial", and "frog"). Each has to write its own definition but it is hardly infringement if a user could consult either dictionary and end up with pretty much the same impression of what a frog is.
If impersonating others were a real problem the free market would take care of it.
In fact these people should be glad their names were used because it was in the cause of unleashing the competition that will sweep the problem away!
I am certain about all this because I read Ayn Rand's, Jozef Schumpeter's and future nobelist Paul Ryan's incisive writing on the evils of so-called Net Neutrality.
They only measure what their customers want, which means advertisers should be reluctant to use the data when figuring out how much to spend.
Case in point: my house was chosen as a "Nielsen household". But we don't have TV service (Netflix and youtube seem to be more than enough for us). Since we don't have cable or OTA service, they don't count us...but every couple of months come round to see if they can survey us.
Either our house is part of their representative sample or it isn't. You can't keep trying to count us but not be willing to take a zero in the dataset.
If NBC hand't been afraid, this might have come out sooner and given time for Trump to let it blow over as previous revelations have. Instead he has much less room to manoever.
(Clearly "worse" is the wrong word for everyone but the cable industry). My only choice is COMCAST. It's cheaper to buy internet + TV, so that's what I got. Slightly cheaper still if I chose cablecard which of course I did. So have a cablecard taped to the modem (mine, not theirs) for when I cancel internet service.
I'm in their stats as a cable subsriber but there are no cable advertisers getting any "benefit" from my subscription. This is simply COMCAST cooking the books.
The numbers are even worse: my vacation house was selected by Nielsen to be monitored for TV viewership. Every couple of months the local rep tries to get me to sign up, but then when they realize I haven't bought a TV "yet" they go away and my house is not in the numbers. That's right: if I purchased a TV, even if I never used it, I'd be counted. So national subscriber percentages are artifically inflated too.
In addition to trying to argue that the FCC doesn't have the authority to police such behavior
They should be careful raising this: if they win it, there's a whole raft of FTC lawyers ready to rain down brimstone on them -- with more teeth than the FCC. In fact it might lead to more comprehensive consumer protection. Trust me, Comcast, you have a sweet deal already.
Twitter has made some dubious decisions over the years -- if they decided to deliberately troll the crazy English libel system it would help redeem them!
Until she actually allowed Böhmermann to be arrested I actually thought it was a materful troll by Merkel. Because if it had been a civil suit it would simply have Streisanded the hell out of Erdoğan's complaints and make him look even more like a dick. Perhaps that was the intent and she let it get out of hand.
Sure, they don't care if you make a fan trailer and so I assume their lawyers don't think this case threatens Mass Effect either. They just don't want people to think the company supports any candidate in particular -- because that could affect sales.
So it doesn't matter to them if their DMCA claim works or not - it just serves to get their message out to their audience.
It's the first sale doctrine: he sold the clip, so the new owners get to do what they want, even if it's stupid. I don't see that this is any different from, say, me buying a piece of software and wanting to be able to resell it -- or buying an iphone and taking it apart (or gluing it to the wall).
I doubt the story is true. Photo geotagging could be faked (I could construct a tag for the white house and put it in a picture I post to instagram) so is not enough, alone, to reliably locate a site.
But still there are plausible explanations:
But consider that the military already knew the location via other means, and did want to take the building out but didn't want it to get out how they knew. Then this loser posts a photo and "wham" -- now they have a plausible excuse.
Another point: perhaps now some terrorists will strip the location info out...but may will not. So by publicising this, it will encourage the jihadis to avoid social media sites (since the story will become garbled and all social media sites become suspect). This degrades their recruiting and publicity channels, which makes their life harder. If I were a military strategist the trade off might become worth it.
Let's assign the blame where it really is due
I really doubt MasterCard wants to turn down revenue.
Typically these decisions are due to pressure from congresspeople or other regulators (State AGs are too small potatoes for bug international networks like MC, but, as we have seen, can hit smaller entities like backpage).
This is similar to the relations between government and the telecoms (or not -- look at Joseph Naccio).
I think Apple is indeed choosing to avoid certain (cough) content on its platforms. I really doubt MC cares.
(untitled comment)
Here is the key factor:
As the example of operation choke point shows, it’s bad actors in government elected officials: senators, reps, state attorneys general) who wield the carrot and stick against the banks. Why would a bank turn down revenue?
The stick is a regulatory trade off: go after the “vice” accounts (sex, alcohol. gambling, guns) and we won’t effect more onerous regulations on you.
The carrot is typically not actually cutting these guys off but instead charging them punitive fees, so they can simultaneously show the government how they following the rules and make extra revenue.
For the technically illiterate
What if it's reverse Stresand?
Perhaps Pinkerton's wants the publicity?
Could be worse:
Hey, at least the Russians and Chinese are stepping up to keep records for us.
Wow, Mike!
Oh come on!
If impersonating others were a real problem the free market would take care of it.
In fact these people should be glad their names were used because it was in the cause of unleashing the competition that will sweep the problem away!
I am certain about all this because I read Ayn Rand's, Jozef Schumpeter's and future nobelist Paul Ryan's incisive writing on the evils of so-called Net Neutrality.
Please list the sites
So if you would list the sites we can be careful not to go to them. If we didnt' know we might accidentally visit them.
In fact we can post the list on our own pages to make sure everybody knows where not to go.
Thanks for your help!
You forgot techdirt deals
Nielsendata are rediculous anyway
They only measure what their customers want, which means advertisers should be reluctant to use the data when figuring out how much to spend.
Case in point: my house was chosen as a "Nielsen household". But we don't have TV service (Netflix and youtube seem to be more than enough for us). Since we don't have cable or OTA service, they don't count us...but every couple of months come round to see if they can survey us.
Either our house is part of their representative sample or it isn't. You can't keep trying to count us but not be willing to take a zero in the dataset.
winderful irony
And the internet existed before ICANN..
It's the DHS
It's no surprise they are the lowest ranked cabinet position, behind even interior and veterans affairs.
Even more than the numbers show
I'm in their stats as a cable subsriber but there are no cable advertisers getting any "benefit" from my subscription. This is simply COMCAST cooking the books.
The numbers are even worse: my vacation house was selected by Nielsen to be monitored for TV viewership. Every couple of months the local rep tries to get me to sign up, but then when they realize I haven't bought a TV "yet" they go away and my house is not in the numbers. That's right: if I purchased a TV, even if I never used it, I'd be counted. So national subscriber percentages are artifically inflated too.
They probably don't want to win this...
Deliberate Streisand troll by Twitter?
thought it was a troll
I think they "had" to
So it doesn't matter to them if their DMCA claim works or not - it just serves to get their message out to their audience.
Which is the real story here.
"moral rights" are a bad idea
Could be "spy vs spy"
But still there are plausible explanations:
But consider that the military already knew the location via other means, and did want to take the building out but didn't want it to get out how they knew. Then this loser posts a photo and "wham" -- now they have a plausible excuse.
Another point: perhaps now some terrorists will strip the location info out...but may will not. So by publicising this, it will encourage the jihadis to avoid social media sites (since the story will become garbled and all social media sites become suspect). This degrades their recruiting and publicity channels, which makes their life harder. If I were a military strategist the trade off might become worth it.
More comments from DV Henkel-Wallace >>
DV Henkel-Wallace’s Submitted Stories.
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