Lisa Westveld’s Techdirt Profile


About Lisa Westveld

My friends call me Lisa. My enemies can refer to me as the Dutch Ice Princess from Hell. Fortunately, I have no enemies. :-)
Yeah, Dutch, female, young, intelligent and I have a girlfriend, which makes me a Le..ia. and proud of it!

Lisa Westveld’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 20th, 2015 @ 3:50pm

    Re: Re:

    I'm not taking it seriously. :-) But my head gets confused by all the styling issues in the code, so it doesn't compile in my head.
    Besides, it would not be a big problem to make the other strings to link to some page, thus making them the same style. :-)

  • Apr 20th, 2015 @ 2:19pm

    (untitled comment)

    They fixed it. :-)
    Semicolons are optional in Python. Either your style is to always use them or never use them, not some mix-and-match. :-)
    The preferred style is to not use them.

    Also, you're not supposed to underline some of the strings. Either use underline for all string constants or no string constants. This doesn't read properly. :)

  • Apr 20th, 2015 @ 1:06pm

    (untitled comment)

    You're missing some semi-colons so it doesn't compute. Sorry. :-)

  • Oct 15th, 2014 @ 7:26am

    Anyone can make requests...

    Anyone can make such requests. And it's up to the hoster to decide if the content needs to be removed or not. Most hosters have restrictions in their policies that would ban certain content and would remove it anyways, no matter who reported it.
    Leaseweb, a company named in the article has these : General conditions (PDF). Article 12 is about the reasons for suspension of the site/account. And 12.1a is the rule that tells you why Leaseweb will immediately obey once they receive a request. They just blindly obey. They also have an "Acceptable Use Policy" and they might define a Jihad site to be unacceptable.
    More hosting companies have similar rules. My own host also has strict rules about the content I host. Even more strict than leaseweb since my host explicitly tells me what content is not allowed. (Basically anything hateful or racist is banned.)

  • Oct 15th, 2014 @ 7:12am

    Not the cops...

    These are not the cops making those requests. The Dutch article mentions "opsporingsinstanties" which Google translates to law enforcement. It doesn't completely cover the meaning, though. There are other government agencies in the Netherlands that have their own inspectors that could do similar things. Our tax office, for example, has similar powers.
    For the Internet we have the "Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid" a.k.a. NCTV (National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security) who are not police officers. They're just government employees who seek out possible threats against the Netherlands or our allies.
    The NCTV is just warning companies that their sites have some content that they might not want to support and thus take down. Those companies should then check out the content before deleting it from their servers but unfortunately most of them don't want to spend time to check it out and delete it immediately.
    But basically, the hosting companies themselves are supposed to check if the complaint is justified or not. The NCTV just notifies them that the content might be unwelcome.

  • Oct 15th, 2014 @ 5:19am

    Yes and no...

    Since I'm Dutch and also live in the Netherlands, I know that providers aren't forced to remove this content. They are just notified about it ang generally decide for themselves that they don't want to host Jihad messages. Hosting Providers are allowed to block certain content on their servers, especially when they suspect it would attract hackers and other hostiles towards their servers.
    Hosters generally have no time to judge the content of sites they host so they rely on external sources to warn them. Basically, these providers have clauses in their policies that don't allow these kinds of sites. (Hate-speech, supporting terrorism.) But the site ownerd then start complaining so the hosters refer to those orders as a valid excuse.

  • Sep 18th, 2014 @ 12:04pm

    (untitled comment)

    I think the court is correct in this case. Section 230 just doesn't apply because it has nothing to do with the case. MM is just as responsible for these rapes as your average phone directory so they don't even need the protection of section 230. The rapists could have preyed upon their victims with any means they would find. You can't hold a car factory responsible for these rapes simply because the models were kidnapped in a car. Or hold a gun manufacturer responsible because they made the gun used in these crimes. Those can do fine without the protection of section 230.
    So why would MM even need that protection? It has no fault in this all.

  • Aug 22nd, 2014 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re:

    Actually, the Internet has no borders. The companies might be located in the USA but its customers are all over the World. And the bigger companies are actually located in multiple areas.
    It is ridiculous for e.g. Facebook to close discussions about Cannabis between Dutch citizens because drugs happen to be illegal in the USA. Frack that! It is legal in the Netherlands so we have the right to talk about it and it should just stay online!
    Which adds the complication of multiple laws deciding what is and what isn't legal to talk about. For the Internet, there should be just one law, and that should NOT be the First Amendment. It should look like it, but has to be much more open to really Free speech.

  • Aug 22nd, 2014 @ 1:54pm

    Re: Re:

    Problem with the First Amendment is that it should discourage censorship, yet there are many ways that lawmakers and companies manage to get around this.
    The freedom of religion, for example, is laughable considering that many non-Christians in the USA seem to have less freedom since some morons explain it as "Freedom in choosing as how to worship the Christian God". It's also complicated when people who worship a Spaghetti-monster as their god have trouble to get a public image of their religion in a public area without being ridiculed. Or how many oats in the USA contain references to the Christian God or other religious references. For example, the oath of citizenship ens with "so help me God" which is such a huge insult for those who don't believe in one. Or who have a different religious view.

    But we're talking about free speech, not free religion. I wonder if communists noticed much of this freedom about 50 years ago. Or the Native American People when they start mentioning what happened to their ancestors. Or even the protesters in Ferguson at this moment!
    You can even wonder if America really has a free press, considering that many of them seem to support the current government and they tend to stay away from certain sensitive topics, to prevent them from becoming public knowledge.
    What's the value of freedom anyways if your choices of expression are still limited? Some people might have some very interesting news stories to tell but no one can hear it because the major newspapers are unwilling to report it. Or worse, they twist around the whole story.
    Don't be fooled! Even in the USA you don't have complete freedom of speech. There are certain topics people don't really want to consider. For example, legalizing Gay marriages or certain drugs tends to be so sensitive that certain media will not allow it within their systems. The same with discussions about pornography, legalizing prostitution or even having comments on the US laws. All those things are often frowned upon and often banned from most media, which limits people in their freedom to make a public discussion about those topics.
    This freedom is just relative. For a true Freedom of Speech, the Internet would have to allow those topics just as much as generic topics about flower arrangements or cars. The USA still has a few limits on this, not by law but by those people in Power who control what can and cannot be the next news item...

  • Aug 22nd, 2014 @ 8:04am

    (untitled comment)

    Applying the "First Amendment" on the Internet would be worse. The First Amendment is a law from the United States of America, and although other countries might have similar laws, they might not want to follow US laws.
    The name for it is completely wrong and will upset a lot of Americans, enforcing their ideas that the USA is trying to gain more control over the Internet, while they actually want less influence.
    Besides, the Internet is asking for new, International laws. It doesn't need old, restricted laws from one specific area of this planet. So, the First Amendment is hereby downvoted as Internet-law.
    Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but please keep in mind that the majority of people on this World are NOT Americans...

  • May 29th, 2014 @ 4:45am

    (untitled comment)

    If they reached the 20th century, they're still a century behind the rest of us. Today, we're living in the 21th century! :-)

  • May 1st, 2014 @ 7:18am

    Re: Re: You're wrong!

    Actually, converting from HD to SD just means trimming some of the fat and delivering a smaller product. Converting can be fully automated so that's a couple of cents in the electricity bill but if the SD size is half the HD size, they will save a lot of bandwidth. (And they probably pay per gigabyte...)
    So, SD is slightly more expensive to create but a lot cheaper to distribute...

  • May 1st, 2014 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: You're wrong!

    Katzenberg is dumb from a technical perspective in my opinion. I don't think he understands the difference between screen size and resolution. But he does know that bigger screens tend to have bigger resolutions thus he thinks the two are related.
    I also assume that devices know the resolution they are using and are thus capable to select the proper resolution based on this while streaming movies. If you have a 4K projector/screen then it will most likely ask for the best resolution streaming, thus the most expensive package. Your phone probably knows it's screen is too small or that it doesn't have enough bandwidth to support movies at bigger resolutions. It would request the smallest resolution and thus has a great performance while displaying the movie over a slow Wifi connection.
    Also, if a device knows the screen resolution, the viewer software on the device would also know it. The software can tell the stream which resolution it wants, thus linking screen size through resolution to the price of the movie. You might be able to change this preference, but it would result in a different quality of your movie.
    Which for some movies won't make much difference. You could look "Rio Grande" with 'The Duke' on your 4K device but it still won't change the quality of the images, since they have been made with an analog camera in black&white instead of full color.

  • Apr 30th, 2014 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re: You're wrong!

    You're assuming that the player software needs to check the resolution of the device to determine the cost price. Its more likely that they just have to base the price based on the quality that you want for your device. If someone is happy with SD quality, yet is willing to pay a lot for a big 4K screen, fine. Would be a waste of your screen quality but some people will be happy with this. But it's more likely that people with a 4K device will set their preference to 4K quality movies. And people looking on low-quality mobile devices would set their standard preference to the lowest quality to save download bandwidth and storage. (And to improve performance since viewing a 4K movie on my Android phone will be really annoying.)

  • Apr 30th, 2014 @ 2:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: You're wrong!

    I think its weird that something costs two dollar at a Dollar shop. Shouldn't it just cost one dollar? :-)

  • Apr 30th, 2014 @ 1:48pm

    You're wrong!

    This model would work just fine and is already in use!
    How to keep the price related to the screen size? Simply offer the movie at different resolutions! For a mobile device, the movie can be set at a resolution of 640x400 and it would look good on your mobile phone but bad on a moviescreen. Make the resolution bigger and it would look great on a television-sized screen. And offer it at 4K resolution and there's your movie theater quality.
    It is already possible to buy movies at SD or HD formats, at DVD or Bluray, where BluRay is supposed to have a better quality image.
    No one will watch a 4K movie on a mobile phone either, since it takes a huge amount of disk space and processing power. Just as no one would use a movie at SD format on a 4K-able monitor. It would look just pixelated.
    Don't think it will never happen since it's already happening today. It even happened yesterday, the day before that, and even further in the past. Jeffrey Katzenberg is correct that price would vary based on resolution. He just refers to this as screen size.

  • Jan 15th, 2014 @ 6:49pm


    That depends on the size. As you know, some women have special implants to make their boobs bigger. What if a suicide terrorist gives herself a couple of fake tits by using a dangerous explosive? Then all she has to do is to shake the milkmachines and BOOM! Everyone goes tits-up in the area...

  • Jan 15th, 2014 @ 4:36am

    (untitled comment)

    Aren't women allowed to walk topless in NY in any location where men can walk topless? If so, let's go all to ESB and make a whole gallery of bare breasts! Both male and female and everything in-between!
    (Is someone prepared to pay for my ticket from Europe to NY, btw? :-) )

  • Oct 9th, 2013 @ 4:38pm

    (untitled comment)

    You don't have to prosecute him. He's already legally dead so if you shoot him, you're not committing murder. You're only damaging a dead body, which is a misdemeanor, if I'm not mistaken.

  • Sep 9th, 2013 @ 2:43pm

    (untitled comment)

    Yelp has a very good reason. If they win or lose, it doesn't matter. This company is now out in the open for creating fake identities which hurts their reputation and all kinds of forums and blogs (like Techdirt) can report about the bad behaviour of this company.
    It also sets an example for other companies telling them Yelp might name and shame them too.
    And of course the value of Yelp would decrease if they did nothing... They make a business out of true reviews so overflooding it with fake ones is bad for business. Especially such clueless ones...

More comments from Lisa Westveld >>