Part of me thinks this is almost an NSL-type situation where he's legally required to not say what he really thinks about it. God knows how many hoops they've had to jump through for the distribution rights they do have. I can be a pretty spiteful consumer but I'm willing to give Netflix a pass on the VPN "crackdown" while we see if they can renegotiate a release-window-less world. Particularly because it's fairly ineffective if you're determined to stream through a VPN.
And they allll moved away from me on the bench there; till I said "and resisting' arrest" and they all came back, shook my hand and we had a great time on the bench, talkin' about crime, smuggling and shootin, all kinds of groovy things we was talking about on the bench.
Yup! I'm much more likely to set up a redirect page on one of my domains than use a shortening service. Not in response to any specific flaw, but because I get to decide how long the url is active and I can even assign it a meaningful address. It's obviously not for everyone, but can be handy if you're able.
Ah, I see! Sure, my behavior could be considered that way. I was just using my experience to point out that the personally identifiable information (pii) they gathered wasn't necessarily submitted by that person.
I don't generally use url shorteners or route people to medical facilities, so my friends should be okay. But it's something that most people probably don't consider; these services take a snapshot of your private browsing history (whatever information is currently in url parameters) and make it publicly accessible and discover-able.
Off the top of my head I can think of exercise routes on trails or roads that hit a certain mileage, or a detour that takes a road not naturally recommended. Sometimes addresses can be geolocated incorrectly so you might use lat/long coordinates instead. I'm sure there are other reasons beyond just generally being helpful.
The main point is that it's something people do, whether there's a good reason or not, and something that google specifically encourages with a checkbox.
"the address, full name, and age of a young woman who shared directions"
Not necessarily. When I share links to directions I hardly ever put where I am in them. Most times they contain where my friend is starting and where they want to go. So this may be the address of a young woman whose friend punched her information into Google and exposed her to a privacy violation. Which is arguably a bit worse.
Certainly if the brightest minds in Silicon Valley just focus their magic abilities we can rid this fair land from the scourge of pi.
Brilliant! We could solve all kinds of problems just by banning them. Chinese air pollution? Banned. Rising sea-level? Banned. Poor folks? Banned. Illegal Drugs? Double banned! Morons in positions of authority? Whoops, never-mind that one.
We have an accord! Sure, I'd love it if we ran the infrastructure like we do public roads. Unfortunately few local governments had the foresight to build municipal networks before big-telecom came through. I just assume a large number of people will have an issue with any level of government seizing infrastructure assets towards that end. If you can figure out a way to make it happen I'm all ears.
Proposing we regulate or unbundle that last mile of connection is my compromise saying "okay we won't just take all your stuff, but you can't run it any old way you want". Though I'm worried neither will happen and we'll eventually have to physically replace every cable with public utility.
Actually, I'm much less comfortable imagining a government NOT run by the citizens it governs. I do think there's such a thing as over-regulation or market situations which are harmed by regulation.
But it is not in areas with a single ISP; which I describe as a Natural Monopoly (I keep capitalizing it for a reason) in contrast to a Legal Monopoly. By definition these markets are not Free Markets and consumers do not have a choice. It's a prevalent failure of the Free Market which is commonly addressed by government regulation for the benefit of its people.
I'm not advocating the FCC set rates for ISP companies, but that rules be enacted that allow competing service providers access to customers. Much like how you'd choose an ISP back in the days of dial-up and the traffic would flow over the phone company's infrastructure.
Regulation seems to just create monopolies because the government gets to pick winners and losers then.
I disagree with the causation here, in my opinion regulation acknowledges when monopoly exists and seeks to keep it from harming consumers. There already is a winner, and he's keeping any competition from entering the market. This is important in cases where breaking a monopoly up isn't feasible. ISP regulation is broken, so think about how this works in other Natural Monopoly utility industries like water or power.
Zero rating enables anti-competitive behavior, allowing them to raise competitors' prices. This wouldn't be necessary with actual competition, but it seems more likely than local-loop unbundling in the meantime.
What's wrong with knowing that you get a gallon of gas when you pay for a gallon of gas? Or electricity, or water... If no one is making sure their metering is correct, posted prices mean nothing.
Yes, the FCC isn't going to do everything we need done alone.
This was caused by the transition of television providers into communications companies. They fought as hard as possible to avoid being classified as common carriers like other telecommunications providers, so as to avoid the thought that they might be forced to carry competitors' traffic.
Trouble is that the Free Market fails in situations where Natural Monopolies arise. Splitting a big company into smaller companies won't make installing duplicate infrastructure cheaper. We need to let many companies use the same infrastructure, which requires regulation. Remember when you couldn't choose a long distance telephone provider?