I was on the phone with Verizon last night talking about FIOS service at a house where I'm one of the property managers and they were similarly clueless, though not that pushy. She didn't even flinch when I told her I was going to cancel service completely after they lied about what my bill would be.
Even where there is competition (I can switch to Comcast there), no one seems to have any incentive to compete.
I don't disagree with you. When you make assumptions that lead to ridiculous conclusions, it usually means your assumptions are wrong. But it doesn't necessarily mean that your process in getting from assumptions to conclusions was wrong.
The only way that interpretation works is if you look at non-citizens as non-people
Unfortunately that's exactly what we do.
Didn't Mike mention a week or three back that the Constitution is pretty careful to use "citizen" most of the time, but sometimes uses "people"? As in, some parts are deliberately meant to apply just to citizens, and some to all people? This is a reasonable distinction to make, as certainly citizens should have some rights not granted to all people.
But if that's the case, and the 4th Amendment says "people", then it's pretty clear it's meant to apply to everyone.
I'm not a lawyer, though I married one and seem to spend most of my time with them.
If you take it as fact that non-citizens have no 4th Amendment rights, then saying something to a non-citizen is essentially equivalent to putting it in plain sight.
Let's say your neighbor is murdered. They find him chopped up into little pieces. It's horrible. They naturally knock on your door to see if you heard anything. If you answer the door holding an axe, covered in blood from head to toe, you have put out in the open that you are very likely the crazy person who murdered the neighbor. If you answer the door in a clean shirt and politely answer their questions, they will have to find some evidence and get a warrant to go find the bloody axe you shoved in the coat closet.
So telling something to a person who has no 4th Amendment protection is basically the same thing. You have taken something that you could have kept "hidden" where a warrant is needed to access it, and put it out in the open where anyone can discover it.
Since this is a pretty horrible result, I think we ought to go back and look at the assumptions that got us here. But given those assumptions as fact, I don't think this is an unreasonable conclusion.
It looks to me like she's got some program that generates that document and she just left the "because" field blank. Or, given ICE's understanding of computers, the program just ate the reason and spit out a blank.
I didn't read her email as entitled. A bit slimy, and undoubtedly exaggerating how good her offer is, but that's pretty standard marketing. She said, "I'll give you X in exchange for Y". It may be a good deal, it may not be, but she sent it to multiple restaurants when only one could take the offer, so clearly she expected some to turn her down. That doesn't seem entitled, that seems like she was covering her bases.
I really do appreciate the work you do towards sustainable business models on the internet, both for other industries and yourselves. It's one of the main things that's made me a regular reader for five plus years, and why I continue to be a regular reader. Techdirt was a huge inspiration for me in trying to start my own business.
And I don't dislike them for no other reason than they're sponsored. After reading some number of sponsored posts and noticing that I didn't like any of them, I came to the conclusion that it was not worth my time to read any more of them.
Don't remember a specific post. It's normally not a post about batteries, just thrown in along the way. Something along the lines of "I depend on batteries for my laptop/phone/whatever, and these are really good and relatively inexpensive".
So the real difference is the blogger is the one asking, while in the case of sponsored posts it's the company coming to the blog? I don't see that as a really meaningful distinction.
I used to read every article here. Now as soon as I see "sponsored", I move on. I have not yet read one that I enjoyed or found interesting. The one you linked is better than average, but I still would have skipped it.
And I won't argue that you don't do a better job of this than other sites. But is that really the goal? To do something better than all the people who do it really badly?
How is this different from the "Sponsored Posts" on Techdirt? They're usually unreadable crap, a marketing flyer thinly-disguised as a blog post. It's nice that you make it really clear that they're sponsored so I can skip over them and save the six seconds of reading time it would otherwise take me to realize they were garbage.
Her email maybe could have been worded a with a little less slime, but for how many marketing emails is that NOT true?
It is generally obvious when someone is being paid vs honestly cares about the products. Like when Mike talks about batteries - he might be getting free ones, I don't know, but he's built up a level of trust so that I believe him when he says they're great.
I had a bad experience with them, too, though luckily they only had $2 of my money. I signed up for a business account, was verified in all of a few minutes, set up the website, then did a test transaction. They instantly locked my account. I tried to get it unlocked, and they told me my business model violated their terms of service.
It sure appeared to me that they set things up to get that first month's payment out of everyone without any sort of verification, but the moment you actually USE the account they would do an actual review. I gave them an overview of the business model from the beginning, but they clearly didn't look at it until I did the test transaction.
To make it even better, they told me the only way to close the account was to unlock it. To unlock it, I would have to change my business model and then they'd reconsider.
Paypal is great for paying people on eBay. Beyond that, stay away.
Isn't it only "way, way beyond what's appropriate" if you assume the opposite of the position that the FBI/DOJ have taken?
That is, if you don't treat Wikileaks as a media organization (and I agree with your reasoning that it is, but that's not the point), then paying an informant to get insider information is just something that the FBI does.