Obviously you don't understand where I agree and disagree with you. Not going to waste the keystrokes on it.
So exactly how much money are you prepared to put where your fat fingers are?
Amusingly enough, I actually put a $100 on Sanders before the NY primary, though I regarded Hillary as good enough. Not good enough to get any of my limited money. Ditto TechDirt as things stand. With valuable "supporters" like you, I'm sure they'll be just fine and dandy.
Very constructive thinking. NOT. Seems typical these days.
What are your motivations? Perhaps you voted for the Donald, who promises to make it easier to sue websites out of existence? (Speaking more precisely, I have no personal interest in you, but kind of a vague curiosity why civil dialog dies. If you're a paid troll for Trump, that certainly makes sense.)
So how about the idea of practicing the legal strategies by describing them in sufficient detail so Internet geniuses like you can shoot them to pieces?
Wasting keystrokes. No sincerity detected.
Oh well. Just speaking for myself. Not merely saying why I am unlikely to donate to TechDirt's defense, but trying to offer a constructive suggestion to justify donating some of my limited money. If you are also so rich (to go with your brilliance) that you don't care about the money, then congratulations again.
If not, I'm wagering that I'd be amused by your best attempt to be constructive.
Typo in original: "is to" should have been "us to".
Obviously you are not a lawyer, so I congratulate you on that. In ANY legal action, there are MANY possible approaches. Why don't you want to help pick the best one, especially if some of YOUR money was going to be involved?
Think of it differently, in terms of the wisdom of crowds. If they present three different defense strategies, just seeing which one gets the most sincere support is useful. You can even regard the willingness to donate as a metric of sincerity.
I, too, believe that your cause is just and that you should prevail. If I were filthy rich, I'd even toss you some money on the principle, but... I'm not so rich, so I have to think about what I do with my money.
Hey, here's a funny idea. Why don't you TELL US how you want to use our money?
More concretely, why don't you follow this article with links to some "solution projects", probably projects to fight this stupid lawsuit in this case. The proposals should stand on their own merits and persuade is to donate enough money to fund the budget.
After the project has been completed, hopefully in accord with the schedule and budget included in the proposal, then you can tell us how it went, and maybe even ask us to donate to some more projects, too.
Actually, this is a more general model that could be used for OSS development or broader journalistic or even social purposes.
I really do wish you well, but right now I'd rather have the cup of coffee, and your just cause isn't fungible.
Details available upon request, even though I think they have become intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Most obviously, the old business models of journalism are dead[, Jim].
The layers of deceit are built upon layers of deceit, so where do you try to unravel the infinite loop?
When you traffic in lies for too long, how can anyone EVER trust you? Just ask #PresidentTweety about trust. We're going to have a presidential library with an entire wing dedicated to the great Twitter Wars.
Don't look at me. I'm so paranoid I'm convinced Snowden was a patsy. Sincere and even a patriot, but still a patsy. They spotted him and fed him what they wanted to leak, but Putin got in the way of the last step of making a right proper example out of him. Maybe Putin will now arrest Snowden as a little housewarming present for his puppet?
Lots of things you could read on this topic, but the kernel of the problem is that productivity is becoming so high that there is no economic requirement for many people to work. If you want those "unneeded" people to continue participating in the economy, then the money has to be provided via transfers that are NOT economic.
However, I prefer to approach the problem from a solution perspective that I tag "ekronomics". The base is a division of human time into essential work time, investment time, and recreational time.
Essential time is for such things as food, clothing, housing, and directly related stuff (like the legal system that keeps people from robbing you of your essentials). In a highly advanced society the average hours for this stuff are quite low, and most people are not even involved. In extremely poor places everyone spends ALL their time scrabbling for survival.
The investment time is for stuff like research and education that increases the productivity going forward. Another type is new infrastructure (in contrast to the essential maintenance of old infrastructure).
Recreational time is different for many reasons, but it would take to long to describe them here. Therefore I'll just focus on the short summary that the balance between investment and recreational time largely determines the FUTURE competitiveness of the country.
Not surprising to me that Finland is leading the way in dealing with this deep economic transition. If Trump "succeeds", maybe America will wind up as a hunter gatherer society?
How do you expect real news to compete with the fake stuff? The production costs are much higher, and fake news can even find its own best markets. At least the Macedonian kids are claiming that they focused on pro-Trump anti-Hillary fake stories because that's what the suckers clicked on--and they just wanted the money from the viral clicks. People want to brainwash themselves, though the google calls it personalization and Facebook calls it "friends".
There was a time when news was seen as a public service. The old newspaper model is more complicated, but in the radio days the monopoly on a frequency had to be justified with some public services, including news. That model was attacked by the Reaganauts, but completely crushed by the Web.
The two most "successful" economic models for news these days are disaster porn, as seen on CNN, and paid propaganda, as seen on FAUX "news". In neither case are they interested in the production of well-informed and discerning citizens. There's a difference in emphasis, however. The advertisers are more focused on your obedience to the toothpaste commercials, while the propagandists mostly want you to obey the political ads.
Not even Hillary, evidently. Apparently the FBI is also broken internally, but the best spin I can imagine is that the FBI just wanted Email-Inquisition parity with the NSA and CIA.
There's an obvious reason the FBI hates email privacy. It's like a contagious disease. If you're going to protect anyone's email privacy, you have to protect Kevin Bacon's email privacy, too, and all of the email of the people in between. Really inconvenient for the FBI agents if the default is "email is private" and they actually have to get a warrant with some kind of probable cause.
One obvious conclusion is that Hillary might like to increase the privacy of email. Hers and yours. A big victory might have included enough Congressional support to do something, while the now likely narrow victory means 4 more years of partisan deadlock.
In contrast, if Trump wins this election because of the intervention of the FBI (and possibly supported by Putin), then he certainly owes the FBI big time, and it seems more likely his first executive order will take the leashes off. The FBI says they need copies of ALL your email, forever and ever, even including your spam, just in case some of the spam has secret encoded messages that might be decoded someday.
Attempted deletion of email will be a criminal offense and a free one-way ticket to the glorious new Gitmo City paid for by Cuba! Maybe you can get the cell next to Hillary?
Almost equivalent, though not identical. Tightly related to learning new things, and as such I suspect they are both closely bound to what makes us human.
Hopefully the insightful side is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer (but in the literal sense, not the idiom), though an example may help on the funny side. Even slapstick humor is educational. We learn NOT to do that by laughing at someone else's pain.
Now what I would like to learn is what aspect of TechDirt makes commenting feel so unrewarding. Perhaps the apparent prevalence of Anonymous Cowards?
"solution solution" was supposed to have been change to "seeking a solution". Not sure how that slipped in there. Pretty sure I did preview and I even remember making some last minute change in that sentence, but...
Another meta-comment on TD is that I thought it had an edit function for posts, but I was obviously mistaken. As I noted, I usually don't comment here.
There are some people who are NOT seeking civilized conversation or dialog. They are often called "trolls". Pretty hard to speculate on their motives, but some of them seem to seek attention while others might be sincere Sophists trying to defend intellectually bankrupt causes. Sometimes you have to speculate some trolls are paid to act insane.
By a solution solution from the perspective of saving time (especially my own), I am now advocating this three-part solution:
(1) Some kind of kill list for long-lived trolls. (2) A maturity filter for short-lived trolls (especially throwaway sock puppets). (3) A reflexive sincerity check.
By "reflexive", I mean that it would first check from the side of the ostensible recipient, and if the reply is not sincere (because it will never be seen), then the reply would get an "Insincere reply" warning (which would also facilitate ignoring the post by people who don't want to waste time on trolls). Yes, there are some trolls who might try to "play to the audience", even after they were warned, but I think these three steps would get rid of most of them without requiring eternal vigilance.
Not sure if this idea applies to TechDirt. The discussions here seem pretty moribund and uninteresting. Might be due to excessive moderation or just a small number of members participating in discussions. (I often perceive the topics as too transient to comment on.)
Is this turnabout fair play for America's meddling in world politics? Or should we regard it as the natural exploitation of America's divided weakness?
On one hand, of course we're supposed to say that America was right in meddling because of the noble intentions. Oil does not count and let's forget about such tawdry money-related things.
On the other hand, "Politics stops at the water's edge" is certainly a sad joke these years. Today's so-called Republicans pledged themselves to President Obama's failure, both foreign and domestic, on day one. The miracle is that he was able to do anything with Dubya's mess over the last eight years, and there's no surprise that Hillary had trouble cleaning up Cheney's mess over the neo-GOP obstructionism.
Putin would be a fool not to take advantage of the situation, and paid trolls certainly would explain some of the tide of mass insanity that the Donald of Trump is now surfing towards the White House. Putin would love to watch Trump throw America into reverse at 90 miles an hour.
Trump's next book should be titled "How to Surf the Rising Tide of Mass Insanity and Win so Big the Country Can't Stand it". It's only natural that American copyright law should be insane, too, and it is only fitting that the Donald jump into that mess, too.
We have always had madmen among us, but usually they don't rise to positions of great power. It happens, but history usually frowns on them, even when they win as big as Genghis Khan. Our scale of insanity is broken and we need to repeal Godwin's Law before we can even discuss the problems? I bet little Adolf had a GREAT solution to any copyright problems he encountered at his little rallies. Just send a few Brown Shirts to "consult" with the annoying artists and the problems went away. (Anyone know the actual historical details?)
In some countries the artists can retain some control over the use of their creations, but in America the rules of the game are written by the most cheaply bribed politicians working for the greediest and most sociopathic businessmen. They only love money and their fundamental problem is unsolvable. NO amount of money is enough. Trump is the natural result, no matter how insane the so-called Republican platform has become. He who dies with the most toys is still dead.
Just because something is legal does not make it right or moral. Especially not on the word of a lawyer whose professional training is mostly about ignoring right and wrong.
Not sure that TechDirt article was written by a lawyer. Couldn't find the attribution, but it sure reads like a legal shill working for Trump.
The opinion of the creator should count. The fans like music because they agree with the creator's message, and the creator has every right to be angry when the music is used to fluff up propaganda. Even angrier when the creator knows the propaganda is a passel of lies (AKA "Trump said it").
Trump has ridden free publicity to the door of the White House, but now he wants to block anyone else from using free publicity against him? If hypocrisy was fatal, the so-called Republican Party would have died out a long time ago. Con Man Donald has NO connection to Honest Abe.
Problems of democracy? Whoa, lad, you're going too fast there. There are SO many problems of democracy that it's probably crazy even to try to pick #1.
However, I can take a shot at why technology is making things worse, and it comes down to bad economic models. Consider the google, for example. On the surface, it looks great and extremely profitable, but in their never-ending quest for more of your time and attention because they NEVER have a "big enough" profit, they are now focused on stuffing your eyeballs and earholes with exactly what you want to hear for fear of losing your attention.
Per my sig, freedom (as a justification for democracy) is about meaningful and unconstrained choice. Choice is NOT meaningful when all of the information has been slanted in favor of not offending you. Even worse, choice is NOT unconstrained when your personal information is being collected and used to manipulate you.
Not just the google, but I think they are probably the worst corporation on these lines. The 'no evil' thing is dead. The google's current motto must be "All your attention are belong to us, the google."
Weirdly enough, I think there is a solution, and it could begin on websites such as TechDirt. It would involve a different economic model focused on SOLVING the problems that the website's articles (or videos etc.) are telling us about.
My new motto is "Details available upon (polite) request, or even better if maybe you have a better idea."
The helicopter thing was kind of amusing, but not insightful. Mostly a political screed.It could have gotten up to informative if it had included some of the numbers, but insightful would have called for something like the fundamental conflict between the freedom of flying and the need for absolutely reliable computer control (sans human freedom) to make it remotely plausible, given our poor human reflexes and worse judgment. (Writing as a pilot who lost his ticket for taking out a few harmless runway lights.)
The one about Hillary also failed to be insightful, but might have been slightly humorous to some people. Why would she want to buy a gun? She has secret service protection. Insight might have been to consider if people under FBI investigation should be allowed to hire armed bodyguards. Still don't see how to make it a problem for Hillary, at least on the theory that the secret service will probably cooperate with the FBI if they want to arrest someone.
Tomatoes. Genetically modified for even outside color and higher retail prices even if the insides are half unripe. Bad.
Humans. Genetic testing to avoid Tay-Sachs. Good.
Even the simple example will confuse many people. No need for abortion. The genetic testing could be used to deter people with the recessive gene from marrying each other in the first place. Still GMO and eugenics, though you might prefer a different flavor, eh?
Actually, a lot of the confusion involves misunderstanding what the genes represent. They are NOT a blueprint for a unique organism or even a set of genetically identical organisms. They are more like a set of recipes for a rather large set of possible organisms... Your results will differ depending on many factors, but especially the nutrients.
(I sympathize since I only came to understand this difference a few years ago. Probably thanks to Richard Dawkins?)
Glad to see that they got their funding, but why not replace that project with another deserving project to consider? Even better, why not offer several choices for us to consider? Even better than that, why doesn't someone (could be TechDirt) act as the charity share brokerage and hold the money for to-be-funded projects?