CrushU’s Techdirt Profile

crushu

About CrushU




CrushU’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 6th, 2019 @ 2:17pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    one could say the same about ContentID not being the problem, and that those who are blackmailing the YouTubers should be sued.

    Almost correct. The difference is that ContentID immediately causes legitimate content to be taken down, because there's no due process in place. But you're right in that the people who are blackmailing should be sued, so good job realizing that it's the people performing the action who should be responsible, not the platform.

    Because ContentID bypasses due process, that's why it's a problem. Especially when there's no reparations to be made when ContentID gets it wrong and deletes an account. (Or is abused to cause an account to get deleted.)

    Well aside from the fact that the blackmailers can't easily be found, if at all, thus making your solution impossible,

    Well, gosh, I guess we'll just have to let everyone who commits a crime and can't easily be found go free then. Your logic is foolproof, and will definitely hold up in court, especially in criminal cases.

  • Feb 6th, 2019 @ 2:10pm

    Re:

    Oh hey, good job, you can identify the song.

    Too bad that's not the problem.

    Can you identify unlicensed instances of a song? And what about when the licensing agreement expires or changes? (Amusingly, an upload filter would do literal nothing in this case, as the song/copyrighted material is already uploaded, its legal status has just changed. There's no feasible way to re-scan every bit of content, so automatically handling this case just doesn't look possible.)

  • Feb 6th, 2019 @ 2:08pm

    Re:

    Wow, that looks a lot like a bunch of people posting defamatory content who should be sued.

    As in, not the platforms.

    How does Section 230 factor into this?

    Section 230 of the CDA was done to save companies money, pure and simple.

    Oh good, I can stop reading the article. Properly aim your lawsuits.

  • Jan 23rd, 2019 @ 10:16am

    Re:

    of a law that causes a man to be harassed the way this one was

    I think I missed the part of Section 230 that forced the evil ex to provide contact info to prospective suitors.

    (Pop Quiz: What exactly did Grindr do here that couldn't have been accomplished by going to a masquerade gay bar and giving out contact info there?)

  • Nov 20th, 2018 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: "a decently strong degree"

    My first thought would be a hardware RSA key, possibly shipped separately, that could be used to confirm the system is running the correct software. And it's as simple as 'Match these numbers.'

    No idea if that would work, but it's a thought at least.

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 10:03am

    That last bit

    Towards the end where you said that employees of a company working on a project desire the knowledge of how that project will be used...

    Wow, he pushed back against a strawman. Who put forth the argument that the whole company would need knowledge of that program? Sure, some in the company might object without full knowledge of it, but if they aren't working on it, I don't see how they would need full knowledge of the project? And they're free to object to how they perceive the project might be used?

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 9:54am

    Re:

    I've noticed it a few times in the past that certain guests have that problem.

    I will say that it's probably a common trait among engineers or other technicaly-minded people... It's a public-speaking skill, essentially. I'm surprised to see it from a congressional staffer, though.

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 9:41am

    As an example

    I think this works out okay for Banhoff. They'd prefer to not show anything to anyone trying to see any of the three sites, but with the court order, they're trying to be as fair as possible. Yes, it violates NN principles, but the court order itself did that, so if they're already being forced to violate NN, might as well do some good while violating NN to explain why they're violating NN.

    Thus, I think this works as an example of a Net Neutrality violation, while explaining that court-ordered violations also exist.

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Provisional Ballots

    While possibly nefarious, they don't count Provisional ballots all the time if the count wouldn't affect the results.

    If one candidate is ahead by 10,000 and you have 5,000 provisional ballots... Why bother counting?

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 12:57pm

    Dodged?

    I feel like we just dodged a bullet there... That if Kavanaugh hadn't been required to recuse himself, we would've ended up with a terrible ruling on this case...

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 8:15am

    Re: Re:

    This is something I've been noticing recently. A lot of the 'voter guides' I see have "No Response" from a lot of candidates. I generally assume that this indicates someone who isn't paying attention to constituents, so I'll generally vote for anyone who responded at all.

    But then I came across one candidate who had all their responses as "For more detail on this question, see <candidate's website>"

    That made me extremely annoyed. If you can't at least give a summary of your position on the question, and instead try to subvert the '100 words or less' limit by trying to redirect to a website... Never voting for you.

    Still, I wonder if candidates respond to all of the surveys they receive, maybe I'm looking at the wrong voter guide that certain candidates don't respond to. I try to verify that whatever voter guide I'm using is a nonpartisan one, but it's not always clear. I almost think this should be some kind of regulation, that *this* guide is the one every candidate should respond to and every voter should reference for answers. But I think that runs into First Amendment issues pretty fast.

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 7:53am

    Re: Re: Karl, I agree

    Stop voting for only two parties. Change needs to happen at the individual level, not the top of government. Only then will we actually see lasting change.

    While I agree with the sentiment, because of how our voting system works, we'll be stuck in a two party system forever. With a winner take all (also called 'First past the post') system, people will naturally gravitate towards a two-party system. I believe it's backed mathematically, but I don't have those proofs on hand.

    (For more information, look for CGP Grey's Youtube videos on the topic of the 'Animal Kingdom' and how different voting systems work.)

  • Oct 30th, 2018 @ 1:18pm

    Re: suggestions for new events.

    DragonCon also has a pretty robust Political LARP scene, as well.

  • Oct 16th, 2018 @ 8:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Or in tl;dr format: 'When all you have is hammer...'

    See, now I'm imagining a world where the accused have rights, and where they're just told "Look, if you have kids, we have a daycare for them for the day. We'll send an Uber/Lyft/Taxi/Autonomous-Vehicle to your house to pick you up. If you aren't there and ready, then we'll put out a warrant."

    And now I'm sad we don't live in that world.

    We couldn't use a GPS tracker bracelet because of privacy concerns, right...? So why is putting them in jail acceptable? I wonder if that should be offered as an option... Until trial, you may either: Sit in jail, pay bail, or wear a GPS tracker.

  • Aug 17th, 2018 @ 12:51pm

    Audio...

    Was something up with Mike? New microphone or something? The audio sounded different...

  • Aug 2nd, 2018 @ 9:43am

    Lying to Shareholders

    Isn't there something about not being allowed to lie about what you're doing to shareholders...?

    "To put it in perspective, we’re operating in 41 states, we have thousands of franchise agreements, and generally we have good relationship with the communities we serve," Rutledge added. "We live up to our commitments and we have in New York State; in fact we’re well ahead of our obligations in terms of speed upgrades and in the build-out itself."

    That sounds verifiably false, to me.

  • Jul 12th, 2018 @ 9:52am

    A bit confusing

    So let me get this straight...

    Elsevier is in charge of monitoring the effects of Open Science research. (They also invest heavily in the space, so this is the conflict of interest.)

    To help them figure out which papers are having the most impact, they're using CiteScore to determine this. They helped develop CiteScore's methodology, but not independently. CiteScore's ratings show Elsevier's papers higher rated than a competitor's, which isn't surprising.

    The methodology for CiteScore is freely available.

    So the solution is just that Elsevier shouldn't be monitoring the system, it should be some other third party? And if this 3rd party uses CiteScore, then that's fine?

    So why is it a problem that Elsevier uses it...?

  • May 14th, 2018 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: More 'Acceptable' Collateral Damage

    It means that there is little or no correlation between the party of the representative and whether he voted for the bill.

    In other words, if you took one random Congressperson, the odds are more likely than not that they would support the bill.

    Further, knowing how they voted on the bill does not allow you to guess their party affiliation with better than 50% accuracy. (Yes, technically there are more than two parties so it'd be lower than 50%, but that's pretty minimal.)

  • Apr 16th, 2018 @ 10:28am

    Feedback

    While I appreciate her expertise in the matter, I would respectfully recommend that Professor Samuelson use less 'um', 'uh', and 'er' in her speech. It made it sorta difficult to follow her. :(

    (I understand that the podcast format is not exactly normal public speaking. I don't want to assume, but perhaps she hasn't been on many podcasts before? I can't imagine that she has problems with public speaking, as a professor.)

  • Jan 16th, 2018 @ 9:09am

    Re:

    And this is why we can't have nice things. :(

More comments from CrushU >>