Am I the only one to immediately think of the Scarlett Johansson vs Disney lawsuit about Black Widow? It was about basically the same subject and they settled with Ms Johansson rather than taking it to trial. https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/scarlett-johansson-sues-walt-disney-co-for-streaming-black- widow-claiming-covid-19-era-backup-plan-breached-contract/
Regardless of the merits of streaming (in a pandemic or otherwise), the contract with Village Roadshow Films might specify or imply a period of theatre exclusivity, which would be a valid basis for the lawsuit. If the release was specified then to change the contract they would need to negotiate a change with the other party, not do whatever they want.
Finally I'm not really aware of Warner Bros reputation, for honesty or otherwise, but should you really repeat their statement so credulously?
The way I read the rule "ICE personnel should not record in a manner that would infringe on activity protected by the First Amendment (e.g., lawful protests)" is that recording should not be used as some sort of threat.
Given that almost everything people say is protected by the 1st amendment I think a strong prohibition on recording it would be dumb and counterproductive.
Which 'conservative speech' is being banned again and as always be specific.
Oooh let me guess. Maybe the racism, or denying the holocaust, or spreading medical misinformation, or grifting, or the glorification of violence in service of their political aims?
It's my understanding that every sub-reddit has moderators who moderate that specific sub-reddit. I'm not an expert on reddit, but hasn't that been the case since the beginning? And my understanding is that sub-reddit moderators can ban users from sub-reddits rather than the site as a whole, but that's still performing moderation.
So while admin level people don't do much moderating in sub-reddits, there is a lot of moderation happening. So most moderation is outsourced to the community, which results in some sub-reddits being shitholes full of trolls, while other communities are kept calm and on topic.
The US already admitted they had a plot to kill him.
Per the badly written Yahoo news article, the US never approved a plot to kill Assange. Pompeo was mad, and asked his staff for fantasies that would never get approved, in the same way you might build a nice house in the Sims that you'll never be able to get IRL.
Pompeo said: "‘Nothing’s off limits, don’t self-censor yourself. I need operational ideas from you. I’ll worry about the lawyers in Washington.’"
His staff said: "“It was, this is a crazy thing that wastes our time.”"
Then lawyers at the CIA and National Security Council shot him down: "NSC lawyers were bulwarks against the CIA’s potentially illegal proposals"
Even Jeff Sessions was against it: "Even Sessions, Trump’s “very, very anti-Assange” attorney general, was opposed to CIA’s encroachment onto Justice Department territory"
And all this happened because of the role Wikileaks played in the 2016 election, AND the Vault 7 release in March 2017: "“WikiLeaks was a complete obsession of Pompeo’s,” said a former Trump administration national security official. “After Vault 7, Pompeo and [Deputy CIA Director Gina] Haspel wanted vengeance on Assange.”" It didn't happen because of the releases in 2010.
I agree with you about why taxes should be created.
But the article doesn't state that the taxes in question only apply to cable providers who have a physical presence, in fact it implies the opposite, that a physical presence is not required.
So if the rationale for the tax is "data is flowing through public cables" then the root cause of the data flow is not Netflix, it is the ISP and customer. So the tax should be levied on the ISP, who could pass that cost on to customers who live in the relevant area.
The other thing would be to look into the contracts governing use of the public cables and adding some sort of pricing based on the amount of data used. My guess is that the risk of this is the lone ISP pulls out of that area, people get cut off, and then blame the local government for the mess.
because Netflix bits technically travel over those same lines
Then presumably this wouldn't apply to anyone who watches Netflix via a mobile internet connection, AFIK that infrastructure has been set up by private providers.
Cable TV providers generally have a physical presence in the towns and cities they serve
I don't see what this has to do with the rights or wrongs of the case.
Finally it seems to me that they would have been better off going after the ISPs (assuming there is more than one) for providing access to the streaming services, although the obvious attack on that argument would be that the ISP isn't selling the streaming service, the access is incidental.
So are you planning on encouraging someone to hack in order to get a story?
Or is Russia about to spirit you away for 'safe keeping'?
Both events were triggers which caused Assange to be charged.
That said, I read this passage rather cynically:
"It is difficult to see why extradition should be refused on the basis that Mr Assange might in future act in a way which exposes him to conditions he is anxious to avoid."
Because I'm sure whatever conditions he's told he must meet to avoid the SAM or ADX would never be used to coerce him.
However, it's also an important lesson for policymakers in various state legislatures, in DC, and around the globe
Maybe that was the reason they did it? Next time they get called before congress they can say "a bunch of right wing trolls actively coordinated to exploit our system". It pushes back against the "conservatives are being silenced" narrative as well.
That raises an interesting question, is there any chance the NSA's hacking could get detected by this? I suppose it depends on how Apple detects the intrusion and whether they loop in the NSA before sending the notification.
On the other hand if they stop sending notifications we'll know the NSA told Apple to stop.
You'd think if it was an algorithm error they'd just blame the algorithm, but instead they say that the enforcement action was a mistake. So by implication the original enforcement was done by a human moderator.
So did the human click the wrong account to suspend, did they make a bad judgement call, or was it a pattern of behaviour targeting certain types of people?
If the community believes there is a pattern of censoring Palestinians, is it a cultural problem among a segment or the whole moderation team?
How can the platform identify cases like these and apply additional scrutiny to prevent erroneous enforcement actions?
This depends on whether it was an automated moderation error or a human enforcement error.
A very simple dividing line would be to have any automated moderation action reviewed by a human, if it applies to a verified account.
If the issue is human error or malice, then you could have more than 1 person review the action. However that would double the amount of humans you need, which would be hard to justify if the scale of the problem is small.
In case you aren't being purposely obtuse, "they have to cancel thanksgiving" in the context of my comment means cancelling thanksgiving events or attendance at such events by SpaceX employees, not cancelling the public holiday. (To your point about individuals cancelling holidays, AFIK Congress needs to approve public holidays you are correct that it would need to be a team effort)
In response to your 2nd point about designating thanksgiving a critical family matter, that is certainly possible but frankly seems like the sort of gamesmanship which would severely displease your boss, even if it worked for you in the past. Given the lax labour laws in the US I suspect you could be fired for that sort of thing, especially at a company like SpaceX, especially in the context of Musky sending this email.
"Unless you have critical family matters or cannot physically return" is not telling your employees they can earn a bit of overtime if they want, or letting on call employees know things are busy and they'll definitely be called up, it's dogshit.
He is literally telling his employees that they have to cancel thanksgiving because management fucked up, and pins all the blame on past management as if he isn't the fucking CEO who was in charge of that previous manager like a week ago.
In the original article Musk also says this gem: "Unless you have critical family matters or cannot physically return to Hawthorne, we will need all hands on deck to recover from what is, quite frankly, a disaster."
And further down "Space Explored’s take: Don’t for a minute take Elon’s mention of bankruptcy at face value [snip] Despite what the email says, if Starship isn’t actually flying every 14 days by the end of next year SpaceX won’t literally go under"
A failure by management is not an emergency for me, and if they can't be honest about the stakes why should I trust anything they say about anything else?
I literally don't understand why anyone would work for this dipshit or why he has a rabid fanbase willing to believe his every word.
Given his lack of consistency between supporting different rights, my guess is that Rep Massie defends the 4th amendment because he thinks it owns the libs or fights back against the tyrannical commies or some such BS.
I bet if the shoe was on the other foot he'd dump the 4th amendment just as quickly as the 1st.
In a just and fair world Reps who don't support all rights for all people should be kicked out at the next election.
Has anyone seen the search warrant, or know anything about the investigation? This article and the NYT article seem to indicate not, although those statements by Jane Kirtley and the ACLU seem to indicate otherwise.
Maybe I missed that bit so if someone could point that out it would be nice, otherwise I'll be giving the FBI the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Anyway, repeating and amplifying PV's claims that they are being unfairly targeted, without any proof either way, is whitewashing PV's reputation.
It's also corrosive to public trust in the FBI, government in general, and society as a whole. (Which ties in with the right wing message, don't trust the government, don't trust the police, you must be armed to be safe, don't trust other religions etc.)
I thought the point of their 'very open' policy was that garbage will sink to the bottom and cream will float to the top.
I don't know how well they think this experiment is going but this might signal a change in policy.
Or it might just be different moderators having different standards and the policy isn't clear enough for them to act consistently and they end up looking schizophrenic (which was part of the problem previously).
Valve might be worried about some sort of copyright issue or the potential for underage pictures being included, but you'd think that would be pretty easy to explain.
On the one hand, threats of punishment for speach is bad, on the other hand it was on Twitter which is hardly the place people go to have a nuanced and thoughtful debate.
Also I think Warren replied in the tone of Amazon's response so I can't really say her response bothers me. Maybe I'm slowly giving up on sacred principles I should hold dear and in a few months I'll be advocating genocide or something.
Are they serious about accessing the site being illegal? When I read it I simultaneously thought that it was incredibly unlikely because of the generally bad understanding of technology on display, and at the same time incredibly likely because making merely accessing certain sites is illegal sounds like exactly the sort of thing the Tories would do.
Scarlett Johansson vs Disney
Am I the only one to immediately think of the Scarlett Johansson vs Disney lawsuit about Black Widow? It was about basically the same subject and they settled with Ms Johansson rather than taking it to trial.
https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/scarlett-johansson-sues-walt-disney-co-for-streaming-black- widow-claiming-covid-19-era-backup-plan-breached-contract/
Regardless of the merits of streaming (in a pandemic or otherwise), the contract with Village Roadshow Films might specify or imply a period of theatre exclusivity, which would be a valid basis for the lawsuit. If the release was specified then to change the contract they would need to negotiate a change with the other party, not do whatever they want.
Finally I'm not really aware of Warner Bros reputation, for honesty or otherwise, but should you really repeat their statement so credulously?
Re: And,..
Charging a conspiracy works upwards, link by link in the chain, that's how it works with the mob, same principle here.
Re:
The way I read the rule "ICE personnel should not record in a manner that would infringe on activity protected by the First Amendment (e.g., lawful protests)" is that recording should not be used as some sort of threat.
Given that almost everything people say is protected by the 1st amendment I think a strong prohibition on recording it would be dumb and counterproductive.
Re: 'Oh, you know the ones...'
Oooh let me guess. Maybe the racism, or denying the holocaust, or spreading medical misinformation, or grifting, or the glorification of violence in service of their political aims?
Re: Re: Re:
It's my understanding that every sub-reddit has moderators who moderate that specific sub-reddit. I'm not an expert on reddit, but hasn't that been the case since the beginning? And my understanding is that sub-reddit moderators can ban users from sub-reddits rather than the site as a whole, but that's still performing moderation.
So while admin level people don't do much moderating in sub-reddits, there is a lot of moderation happening. So most moderation is outsourced to the community, which results in some sub-reddits being shitholes full of trolls, while other communities are kept calm and on topic.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Per the badly written Yahoo news article, the US never approved a plot to kill Assange. Pompeo was mad, and asked his staff for fantasies that would never get approved, in the same way you might build a nice house in the Sims that you'll never be able to get IRL.
Pompeo said: "‘Nothing’s off limits, don’t self-censor yourself. I need operational ideas from you. I’ll worry about the lawyers in Washington.’"
His staff said: "“It was, this is a crazy thing that wastes our time.”"
Then lawyers at the CIA and National Security Council shot him down: "NSC lawyers were bulwarks against the CIA’s potentially illegal proposals"
Even Jeff Sessions was against it: "Even Sessions, Trump’s “very, very anti-Assange” attorney general, was opposed to CIA’s encroachment onto Justice Department territory"
And all this happened because of the role Wikileaks played in the 2016 election, AND the Vault 7 release in March 2017: "“WikiLeaks was a complete obsession of Pompeo’s,” said a former Trump administration national security official. “After Vault 7, Pompeo and [Deputy CIA Director Gina] Haspel wanted vengeance on Assange.”" It didn't happen because of the releases in 2010.
Re: Re:
I agree with you about why taxes should be created.
But the article doesn't state that the taxes in question only apply to cable providers who have a physical presence, in fact it implies the opposite, that a physical presence is not required.
So if the rationale for the tax is "data is flowing through public cables" then the root cause of the data flow is not Netflix, it is the ISP and customer. So the tax should be levied on the ISP, who could pass that cost on to customers who live in the relevant area.
The other thing would be to look into the contracts governing use of the public cables and adding some sort of pricing based on the amount of data used. My guess is that the risk of this is the lone ISP pulls out of that area, people get cut off, and then blame the local government for the mess.
(untitled comment)
Then presumably this wouldn't apply to anyone who watches Netflix via a mobile internet connection, AFIK that infrastructure has been set up by private providers.
I don't see what this has to do with the rights or wrongs of the case.
Finally it seems to me that they would have been better off going after the ISPs (assuming there is more than one) for providing access to the streaming services, although the obvious attack on that argument would be that the ISP isn't selling the streaming service, the access is incidental.
(untitled comment)
So are you planning on encouraging someone to hack in order to get a story?
Or is Russia about to spirit you away for 'safe keeping'?
Both events were triggers which caused Assange to be charged.
That said, I read this passage rather cynically:
"It is difficult to see why extradition should be refused on the basis that Mr Assange might in future act in a way which exposes him to conditions he is anxious to avoid."
Because I'm sure whatever conditions he's told he must meet to avoid the SAM or ADX would never be used to coerce him.
Demonstration case
Maybe that was the reason they did it? Next time they get called before congress they can say "a bunch of right wing trolls actively coordinated to exploit our system". It pushes back against the "conservatives are being silenced" narrative as well.
Re: Re:
That raises an interesting question, is there any chance the NSA's hacking could get detected by this? I suppose it depends on how Apple detects the intrusion and whether they loop in the NSA before sending the notification.
On the other hand if they stop sending notifications we'll know the NSA told Apple to stop.
(untitled comment)
You'd think if it was an algorithm error they'd just blame the algorithm, but instead they say that the enforcement action was a mistake. So by implication the original enforcement was done by a human moderator.
So did the human click the wrong account to suspend, did they make a bad judgement call, or was it a pattern of behaviour targeting certain types of people?
If the community believes there is a pattern of censoring Palestinians, is it a cultural problem among a segment or the whole moderation team?
This depends on whether it was an automated moderation error or a human enforcement error.
A very simple dividing line would be to have any automated moderation action reviewed by a human, if it applies to a verified account.
If the issue is human error or malice, then you could have more than 1 person review the action. However that would double the amount of humans you need, which would be hard to justify if the scale of the problem is small.
Re: Re: Re: Re: subject left blank
In case you aren't being purposely obtuse, "they have to cancel thanksgiving" in the context of my comment means cancelling thanksgiving events or attendance at such events by SpaceX employees, not cancelling the public holiday. (To your point about individuals cancelling holidays, AFIK Congress needs to approve public holidays you are correct that it would need to be a team effort)
In response to your 2nd point about designating thanksgiving a critical family matter, that is certainly possible but frankly seems like the sort of gamesmanship which would severely displease your boss, even if it worked for you in the past. Given the lax labour laws in the US I suspect you could be fired for that sort of thing, especially at a company like SpaceX, especially in the context of Musky sending this email.
Re: Re: subject left blank
"Unless you have critical family matters or cannot physically return" is not telling your employees they can earn a bit of overtime if they want, or letting on call employees know things are busy and they'll definitely be called up, it's dogshit.
He is literally telling his employees that they have to cancel thanksgiving because management fucked up, and pins all the blame on past management as if he isn't the fucking CEO who was in charge of that previous manager like a week ago.
subject left blank
In the original article Musk also says this gem: "Unless you have critical family matters or cannot physically return to Hawthorne, we will need all hands on deck to recover from what is, quite frankly, a disaster."
And further down "Space Explored’s take: Don’t for a minute take Elon’s mention of bankruptcy at face value [snip] Despite what the email says, if Starship isn’t actually flying every 14 days by the end of next year SpaceX won’t literally go under"
A failure by management is not an emergency for me, and if they can't be honest about the stakes why should I trust anything they say about anything else?
I literally don't understand why anyone would work for this dipshit or why he has a rabid fanbase willing to believe his every word.
Fair weather friend
Given his lack of consistency between supporting different rights, my guess is that Rep Massie defends the 4th amendment because he thinks it owns the libs or fights back against the tyrannical commies or some such BS.
I bet if the shoe was on the other foot he'd dump the 4th amendment just as quickly as the 1st.
In a just and fair world Reps who don't support all rights for all people should be kicked out at the next election.
(untitled comment)
Has anyone seen the search warrant, or know anything about the investigation? This article and the NYT article seem to indicate not, although those statements by Jane Kirtley and the ACLU seem to indicate otherwise.
Maybe I missed that bit so if someone could point that out it would be nice, otherwise I'll be giving the FBI the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Anyway, repeating and amplifying PV's claims that they are being unfairly targeted, without any proof either way, is whitewashing PV's reputation.
It's also corrosive to public trust in the FBI, government in general, and society as a whole. (Which ties in with the right wing message, don't trust the government, don't trust the police, you must be armed to be safe, don't trust other religions etc.)
Re: Re: Re:
I thought the point of their 'very open' policy was that garbage will sink to the bottom and cream will float to the top.
I don't know how well they think this experiment is going but this might signal a change in policy.
Or it might just be different moderators having different standards and the policy isn't clear enough for them to act consistently and they end up looking schizophrenic (which was part of the problem previously).
Valve might be worried about some sort of copyright issue or the potential for underage pictures being included, but you'd think that would be pretty easy to explain.
(untitled comment)
On the one hand, threats of punishment for speach is bad, on the other hand it was on Twitter which is hardly the place people go to have a nuanced and thoughtful debate.
Also I think Warren replied in the tone of Amazon's response so I can't really say her response bothers me. Maybe I'm slowly giving up on sacred principles I should hold dear and in a few months I'll be advocating genocide or something.
(untitled comment)
Are they serious about accessing the site being illegal? When I read it I simultaneously thought that it was incredibly unlikely because of the generally bad understanding of technology on display, and at the same time incredibly likely because making merely accessing certain sites is illegal sounds like exactly the sort of thing the Tories would do.
More comments from migi >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by migi.
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