This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I replied to the last one on the list, that's all.
It's pretty simple. If people an more easily see your comment than mine, because some people have decided that they do not like my comment, then it's censored. Think of the report button a form of prior restraint, making it harder for me to express my views and easier for others. Anything that limits someone's speech is censorship.
Nobody is trying to educate me, they are trying to JUDGE me. They don't like my comments, so they insult me, they bait me, they call me names, and most of all THEY CENSOR me.
Oh, and Techdirt doesn't even have the decency to show me when the posts are censored, I can find it out by using another browser that isn't logged in. Isn't that classy.
Funny, that. As soon as you are barring people from speaking -- no matter how unpleasant you find the speech -- you are a threat to "the functioning of democracy" yourself. The functioning of democracy requires the ability for people to speak freely, especially unpopular speech.
An incredibly thoughtful comment, sadly lost on a site where people use the "report" button as a way to down vote unpopular opinions to shut them off.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
I have to wonder: Are the Tims happy about anything, ever? You guys both tend to sound really pissed off, like a really loud drunk at a party who just got turned down by the last girl in the room.
In one case, it billed The Associated Press $135 an hour — for nearly a day's work — merely to retrieve a handful of email accounts since the shooting. That fee compares with an entry-level, hourly salary of $13.90 in the city clerk's office, and it didn't include costs to review the emails or release them.
Sort of an unfair comparison. I don't suspect that they would leave answering such FOIA requests to the lowest paid employee in the place. They also wouldn't let the resulting dataset out without review. The price is high, but it's not particularly out of line when you consider what a short term computer "consultant" would charge to do the same work.
For what it's worth, they can't just run a keyword search against a bunch of emails and turn it over. That would likely result in relevant emails being missed, and irrelevant or even messages that might get covered as evidence in the investigation getting put out to public. Quite simply, it's not a two minute job that the lowest paid clerk in the building can do.
It's the issue I mentioned the other day, where everything in the US is pushed to the nth degree. It's either just barely legal or "appears okay", and that is enough for everyone. Everyone from pirates sites and Aereo to NSA and TSA all play from the same book in the end, it's legal until a court of law says otherwise.
So if we are going to say that they police should get a warrant even if they don't TECHNICALLY need one to respect existing law otherwise, then perhaps pirate sites who are "just search engines" could perhaps stop listing stuff that is likely pirated?
Nah.... we push it to the very limits, well beyond the edge of reasonable logic, because, well... the law just barely.
Here's the thing though... up to the point of jamming, they are within the industry norms, and the ONLY reason the FCC is involved is as a result of that. Merely blocking mifi devices from hosting multiple devices on their network wouldn't even be the issue.
A couple of things. The price was "up to $1000" and not an absolutely $1000 for every use. Generally, that would be an 'old style' convention / booth space rate, similar to charging $400-$1000 to hook up power and a couple of thousand more for a 10 by 10 space. I can remember setting up convention spaces in various cities in the US and finding that their internet charges were insane. In at least one case, they would force you to deal with their prefered supplier, who would set up a T1 line (speedy as it was at the time), and you would be required to pay setup, removal, and a full month's service, even if you needed it only for a day.
In very general terms, $250 a day for wi-fi seems high, but in convention space terms, it seems pretty much par for the course. Most hotels with WiFi intentionally make sure that the service is NOT available in their convention spaces, and charge for connectivity - installing a wireless modem in your conference room, as an example.
Marriott certainly went over the top here, I guess just pure profiteering wasn't enough for them.
Google literally stands between the online public and the sites. Put a site into a top 5 position for a major keyword, and they can become one of the most popular sites online. Rank them at the back (or worse, stick them in the sandbox / naughty pile) and the chance anyone every finds your site is zero - unless of course you are willing to pay big money for exposure.
Google has incredible power over what is and what is not "hot" online. Almost every webmaster, site designer, and programmer is painfully aware of trying to make sites that "please Google", because there is no real alternative.
The real problem of the Olympics isn't the over promise of the IOC, rather it's the over reach of the host cities.
The Olympics lasts a few weeks. In order to get the games, they need a certain number of facilities. Generally, countries see the games as an excuse to go on a massive spending spree to improve their sports facilities and transportation networks. Sadly, they are often building stadiums nobody wants, housing ill equipped for the local population, and transportation networks to and from places nobody normally wants to go outside of the games.
It doesn't help the IOC at this point that the last few Olympics have been financial fiascoes on an extreme scale: Russia reportedly overspent by nearly 50 billion for the winter games, Beijing more than 40 billion over budget for the summer games. These massive overspenders have set the bar high, and nobody seems able to hit it.
We won't even talk about the disaster that is Greece.
The real ongoing issue is that Olympics seemingly cannot happen in existing facilities. It seems to require all new, all modern, all perfect things built for the ages and used for the weeks. In these tougher financial times, only communist (and near communist) nations appear to have the money and desire to get into these things. Even the oil rich countries of the middle East are smart enough not to get dragged into the mess.
Except for Bing. Or Yahoo. Or Ask. If people use Google because they like it better, then Google is being successful. That's the very essence of capitalism, make a better product then everyone else so people use yours.
Okay. Explain to me how to remove the Google search from an Android phone and replace it with a yahoo search - without rooting the phone.
Explain to me how to stop Firefox from sending my incomplete typins to Google as searches (so they can get paid).
Explain to me how I can surf the web without getting buried under targeted and semi-targeted ads from Google based on the my searches on their search engine - without having to disable other products.
You can't easily do any of those things - and the default action certainly is monopolistic.
Here's a question that will blow your troll mind: Would you have seen that article if it wasn't on Google News?
No, and that isn't the point. If I had seen ONLY the headline on Google news, I may have clicked the link and visited the site. Because Google conveniently provided me enough of the opening paragraph to explain the story, I have much less need to go there. I was actually trying to find a study from many years ago about how people read newspapers, and generally it was they read the headline, and if interested, the first paragraph. Most didn't go past that point. Google appears to be showing just enough to make a visit to the source less likely.
For what it's worth, I am not a regular Google news user, I find their attempts to personalize the news doesn't work well for me. So I tend to do the rounds of my usual news sources, rumor sites, and the like... without worrying about what Goog has decided is relevant to me.
news organizations should choose between being on Google or not being on Google.
I think that there is a third space here, which is potentially Google needs to allow for news sites to have a feed that Google can read where the news source can decide how much of the story is shown, what stories they want to show, and so on. Google's "our way or the highway" mentality on things is really painful considering their near monopoly position as a traffic source. That is where my initial point comes in, with them being that near monopoly, it's hard for anyone to stand up to them on any level, because Google can just turn off the tap and end their online business overnight.
I don't mean informed like "in depth, endless knowledge" but pretty much I got the gist of the story and unless it interests me further, I am not clicking to the site. There is enough on the Google site to make it possible to have a skimming knowledge of the days events without ever visiting another site.
I guess when you read a newspaper, you read every word of every story including the disclaims on the ads, right?
The point is you can be informed enough without leaving the Google page, which means the newspapers / news site don't get the benefit of the reader, Google does.
Dealt with for what? For sending the publishers FREE traffic they can (fail to) monetize on their pages?
It's never that simple.
Google has worked very hard to become the main (and nearly one and only) web middleman. They are in many ways not in a very different position of what Microsoft was in with IE a number of years ago. They were not the only player, but they had an effective monopoly.
Google is such a high percentage of the search business, and they use all of their other products (including news) to drive more users to their search. Google search on non-apple mobile devices is a near lock on the market.
The problem here is that Google doesn't just send free traffic. It also builds pages which can take traffic away, allowing users to browse headlines without having to visit pages.
As an example, top of Google news for me is:
"American cameraman for NBC News diagnosed with Ebola in Liberia Reuters Africa - 2 hours ago By Steve Gorman. LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - An American freelance cameraman working for NBC News in Liberia has tested positive for Ebola, the network said on Thursday, making him the fifth citizen of the United States and its first journalist known to "
I don't really have to go any further, I am informed. The nature of the news world is to put a big chunk of the basics of the story into the first paragraph. So the part of the story that Google quotes generally tells you a whole bunch about the story. I don't have to go to the news site in question unless I really want to know more. Essentially, the news site informed me without getting the reciprocal right to show me other options, pages, lines, and the line. Google retained that right.
Just as importantly, the search box on the top of the page goes to generic, paying search results.