Re: Re: Re: If the EFF ever needed to put "Broken by Design" stickers on something...
DailyKos is a liberal site that doesn't promote hatred of people.
If you think this, then you are not paying attention. They blatantly promote hatred of all things conservative, often in so many words. There's been more than one article on there that literally used the word "hate" in the context of how any right-minded reader should feel about the subject of the current excoriation. Some of them were written by Markos, the guy who runs the site.
The only difference between them and Breitbart is who they're inciting hatred against. Both are ugly, festering menaces that are destroying our culture, rotting it away from the inside.
Re: If the EFF ever needed to put "Broken by Design" stickers on something...
It looks like you're trying to make some good, legitimate points, but be careful who you cite. Unfortunately, your credibility goes right out the window when you link to a site like the Daily Kos, an extremist site dedicated to raving irrational hatred of all things even the slightest bit conservative. They're basically the Left's answer to Breitbart.
> But, that doesn't seem to be the reason why Trump is against these deals. Rather, almost all of his commentary on these agreements is about how other countries are "winning" and the US is "losing" from these trade deals
And he's right about that much, at least
> and how he's ready and willing to jack up tariffs and basically set off trade wars with some of our largest trading partners. That's bad, and will likely cause a lot more harm than good.
Personally, I've always been a fan of Tom Clancy's suggestion that our fundamental trade policy should essentially be "our markets are as open to your country's trade as your country's markets are to our trade." If you want a level playing field, you could do a lot worse than to make the other guy play by his own rules and see yow much he likes it.
I'm all for essentially blanket immunity under Section 230 for community content, but AirBNB is something else entirely. It's not just some forum where people can post rental listings, which is what Section 230 was written for because it's the sort of thing that was around when the CDA was written.
AirBNB is a booking agency. Every rental that takes place, takes place through AirBNB's infrastructure, with AirBNB taking a cut of the deal. To say Section 230 applies here is to create all sorts of perverse incentives, because if you can create a site to help people sell illegal things, get a cut of each sale, and then claim immunity and operate with impunity once people start using it for much more serious crime, what's to stop someone from doing exactly that?
Sorry, but the only ruling that makes any sense is that AirBNB stops being a simple "content platform" when it becomes a business partner. And I don't see that as "chipping away at Section 230 protections" in the slightest, because it doesn't do anything at all to harm the sites that Section 230 was intended to protect. All it does is properly clarify the boundaries of Section 230 WRT a category of sites that weren't a thing back when the CDA was passed.
Seriously, anyone who didn't take one look at the slogan "make America great again" and immediately say "he's going to ride those four words all the way to the White House" is simply not paying attention.
Sure, the polls kept predicting Clinton would win, and yeah, what Nate Silver managed to pull off last time around was pretty awesome, but even when the entirety of the Primary process showed Trump consistently doing significantly better than polls predicted, everyone in the media continued to treat the polls as gospel. (Einstein's definition of insanity springs to mind!)
The 538 polling was the sort of trick you can only pull off once, because once people realize they're being observed, their behavior changes. (Techdirt readers are already quite familiar with this principle as applied to surveillance, but it's true in other contexts as well. Many, many other contexts.) Drawing attention to Nate Silver's accomplishments destroyed its effectiveness.
Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
Another good thing that results from his election: we didn't elect Hillary.
Various email leaks make it painfully clear that she stole the primary nomination from Bernie Sanders, with the willing help of a viciously anti-democratic Democratic Party. If she had won, that would have set an awful precedent, that doing so is OK and rewarding.
Therefore, she had to lose, period. I just wish she could have lost to someone who would make a good President.
10. Bad trade agreements: It's a bit of an open secret that Hillary was only against the TPP because she had to publicly express disapproval of it in the primary, and that she had every intention of fully supporting it once she was sworn in. That's not happening now, and by all appearances, Trump will actually oppose it and other bad trade deals.
Will he do so out of xenophobia and a complete misunderstanding of foreign trade? Absolutely! But remember, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing.
I wouldn't want someone vehemently in opposition to either of those things to be in charge of their public policy either. Even if you don't like them, you have to have an understanding of the subject and why they may be necessary despite reasonable opposition.
See, that's exactly the point that you are missing. You appear to be operating under the unspoken assumption that simply because something exists and is widespread to some degree, that there necessarily exists a legitimate need for it.
Do you believe it's ever the case that this is not true?
So, yes, any "censorship" that came out of this would likely have been accidental, but just because censorship is accidental, it doesn't mean that it's inconsequential.
The term sin querer, quierendo immediately comes to mind.
It comes from a Mexican sitcom called El Chavo del Ocho, a really bizarre show about a bunch of young children getting into all sorts of mishaps, except they were all played by actors who are obviously mature adults. (It gets weirder from there.)
Chavo is really clumsy, but the accidents he causes frequently tend to cause trouble for rivals. His standard semi-apologetic catch phrase was "fue sin querer, quierendo," which kind of loses something in translation. "Sin querer" means literally "without wanting to," and is used where an English speaker would say "it was an accident!" But he then follows it with "quiriendo" (wanting to,) making the phrase translate very roughly as "it was an accident that happened on purpose!"
These "accidents" with automated takedown systems (and with DMCS brokenness in general) have always seemed like obvious examples of sin querer, quierendo to me. They're screwing up in exactly the way they were designed to screw up, to provide plausible deniability for the tightening of censorship and control at the expense of Promoting The Progress.
If it happened once or twice, we could be justified in calling it a legitimate accident. But when it keeps on happening, the same way, over and over and over, and no one causing the "accidents" is doing anything to fix them, it keeps getting harder and harder to believe it's not intentional.
To make matters worse, as a die-hard Luddite, he seemed uniquely unqualified for his new position.
This is tricky. While I agree that he's probably not the best guy for the job, it's dangerous to take a principled stand on that particular principle, because of the way it can come back and bite you in the end: you're essentially saying that nobody who is against X has any business setting policy for X. (Abortion and the drilling of new oil wells immediately come to mind, to drive the point home on both sides of the political spectrum.)