So, why is there no involvement from the Telcos here? The Law Enforcement agencies are setting up a man-in-the-middle attack in their networks, they are transmitting on their frequencies, they are degrading the quality of the cellular service.
Why no outcry from carriers? Something's going on there.
Karl, you wrote "But then again, many websites aren't giving up on comments because it's really all that hard to save them, they're giving up because it's just easier and cheaper to ignore these users completely, "
Isn't it also true that many websites are killing comments sections because they don't want to bother or are afraid of legal actions, law enforcement inquiries, and brand damage of being viewed as "responsible" for all the content on their site, even if it was posted by third parties?
I know Techdirt often talks about Section 230 protection, but most people have never heard of it. It is not all-powerful, and it doesn't stop lawsuits and attacks, even if they can be won using Section 230. An easier solution for websites is just to kill the conversation.
It's chicken shit, and as you wrote, it sends all the community, and thus all the valuable business to Facebook. And then the news companies complain about how Facebook is making more money than them.
It won't happen, but Section 230 needs to be its own separate law. It needs to be publicized and well-known. It might even rise to the importance of meriting a slot in the constitution. Otherwise, conversations will be killed for expedience.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now Trump is a book burner?
Baron. I know you are right here, but consider that:
"I heard an interesting interview..."
is not you citing the most reliable source.
I'm sure the AC you are arguing with also "Heard it on the TV" that "fake news" is a liberal conspiracy to silence the truth tellers.
To the AC, "fake news" is not just anything libs don't like. It is stuff like "Obamacare to instate death panels" or "Assange feared dead" or "FBI agent in Weiner emails found dead" and other shit that is patently false, but is clickbait paydirt that is gobbled up and shared by twice as many on the right as the left.
There is extensive work being done in this field, and steady progress is made.
You'll recognize it by the array of acronyms you've seen used for video: MPEG2, H.263, WMV, MP4, H.264, HEVC, H.265, etc.
These each represent different compression and container technologies from various competitors or standards bodies. And, over time, they get better and better at compressing video.
They don't actually improve that much because of better math (compression algorithms) but rather get better because of Moore's law. The math is fairly well known and unchanging, but Moore offers more encode/decode power in silicon which enables real-time capture or rendering of these tightly-packed, mathed-out compressed files.
The trick, as usual, isn't just to get a better compression, but also to get that standard widely used across media companies and hardware makers.
For example, the smartphone video era was powered mostly by MP4, a file format from the MPEG and the ITU (Moving Pictures Expert Group, International Telecom Union). It is a.k.a H.264.
The reason a common standard works so well is that phones/players can have a dedicated hardware acceleration chip that renders the video. This makes for fast decoding, and lower power consumption than the alternative: running a software decoder on your general processor. Dedicated hardware means your phone battery doesn't die after 30 minutes of video.
H.264 is currently getting replaced with H.265, a.k.a HEVC, although it is not a sure thing until this achieves mass-market acceptance.
Anyways, this has been ridiculously simplified because the video encoding, compression, and transport world is so fucking complicated I cannot ever get my head around it.
Suffice to say that it is very difficult to take a MP4 file and compress it, because it has already been compressed like the earth's core by dedicated hardware.
"the agency that can and does result in inconsistent progress (even though partisan infighting is often intentionally used by companies to sow division on non-partisan issues like net neutrality). "
You are providing false equivalence and not calling a spade a spade.
There is one political side that is consistently on the consumer's side, and another political party whose reps are consistently the seemingly tone-deaf apologists who just happen to support incumbent positions.
Put more clearly: Dem Commissioners more often support consumer interests and GOP Commissioners more often support incumbent positions. The GOP Commissioners like Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly consistently side with incumbents. Not surprising, since the GOP commissioners are almost always former (and future) incumbent lobbyists.
I know you don't want to get political. Nor do I. But what has being polite and offering false equivalence taught us? I still don't think this is political to state that it's the GOP at the FCC that's selling the citizens down the river. It's just reality.
Even if you accept Jamison's Fantasy #1, that there is growing competition, so no anti-monopoly regs are required.
You still have the challenge of explaining how we don't need any Net Neutrality protection in an era where all the network operators are vertically integrating by buying up content companies, TV networks, and production. You have to also create a fantasy where vertical integration isn't a thing. That's a harder delusion to sustain.
"Yes, There's Lots Of Fake News On Facebook, But Is It Really Changing Anyone's Mind?"
I agree with you, Masnick, that it is not "changing" people's minds from L to R or R to L. It's not "changing" their minds in the sense that they're not going to vote differently after reading their Facebook-fed news.
But it IS changing people's minds in another important way. It is cementing their minds, and further locking in their chosen narrative. That is a change in the mind. It makes it harder to bring people back to a shared set of facts...facts that more or less represent reality.
(Yeah, reality is hard to define, and always subject to some bias. That's why I say "more or less" represent reality.)
Look, we already have confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance in our amazing, faulty, monkey brains. This kind of news filtering just worsens those already big problems. This takes our human blind spots and wraps them around us 360 degrees.
This isn't new. This exact negative outcome was predicted when the "personalization" of search and news really started taking off in 2010. Tim Berners Lee wrote an article about the "Hotel California effect" for the Guardian, and Eli Pariser published his book "Filter Bubble". They predicted it would reduce the quality of critical thinking, and they were right.
I agree with you that just "blaming Facebook" for the election is a bit of a stretch, but you're wrong to act like it's not an important part of what needs to be fixed...somehow.
What's the fix? I dunno so far. But I think we should "nerd harder". This problem is not intractable like "encryption with backdoors". Maybe we also should "journalism harder", "ethics harder", and "policy harder".
The impact Social Networks have on bubble thinking can be reduced, and that's a worthy objective. As long as we share on planet, it's better if we share one version (more or less) of reality.
Re: Re: Re: "This isn't a post to mock Ben...as he mocked us."
Coyne, you're right, if said in English, which this is, since the "hoisted..." quote is not part of the English lexicon. Petard is also now a fully English word, pronounced in a way that rhymes with...um...retard.
Art G's point (irrelevant in this case) is that in French pétard has a silent "d" at the end.
The benefits of trade are seldom discussed, and probably not at all in this political campaign, because they're like a third rail. That's wrong, and will result in the wrong policy.
The negatives of trade are well-known. Some will lose jobs to people abroad willing to work for less. That's a real cost, and any person who loses such a job disproportionately pays the cost of trade.
But the benefits are bigger, and accrue to everyone who buys stuff at lower prices. Since the rich buy more, one could argue that the benefits accrue to them, but the fact is, cheaper goods enable the middle class and poor to buy some amazing products at some very low prices -- products that they might not be able to afford without trade.
Trade also brings varieties and diversity of products, which is an arguable benefit to all.
Whenever somebody says "I am against free trade", it should be a given that they are also saying "and I think we should pay higher prices for most things as a cost of stopping trade." But Trump, and many others simply don't understand that the implicit second part MUST travel with the first.
Economists, who usually disagree, are almost unanimous (87%) in saying "free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society*".
The question, therefore, should not be whether we support free trade or not, but rather: how do we ensure a more equitable sharing of the gains from free trade?
Note: I'm not talking about the TPP, which is less about free trade, and more about corporate greed and control.
Yeah, this is stupid of the CBC. Basically, the app is just delivering them listeners, delivering them increased influence, community, and ad opportunity. Should CBC not pay the app for that instead of vice-versa? Meh, no, should be deal-free and just how it goes.
Cable Industry But the precendent is strong. The Cable industry has been paying broadcasters for decades to extend their reach and bring them more viewers. I've never understood why cable companies (and thus their customers) should pay a broadcaster to pick up and repeat their free-to-air signal, but there it is.