James Burkhardt’s Techdirt Profile

deadspatula

About James Burkhardt




James Burkhardt’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 13th, 2018 @ 10:11am

    Re: Why?

    Because the government isn't making this claim - its a civil claim, so it is an alleged victim of backpage andthe victim's lawyer, who are going to pile on as many complaints as possible.

  • Apr 11th, 2018 @ 2:54pm

    (untitled comment)

    A few have mentioned it, but the AAA games industry is highly focused on 'Live Services' or "games as a service' - aka online only, multiplayer-focused games that can use predatory micro-transactions for infinite profit potential. Focusing on the high end PC gamer market hurts them. They want a ton of players, as many as possible, because then they can wear players down, and turn them into payers.

  • Apr 9th, 2018 @ 2:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm Amazed Anything About This Is A Surprise

    However, I am actually basing my assumption that Facebook ceased the practice on the FCC complaint Posted by the AC I was replying to.

  • Apr 9th, 2018 @ 2:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm Amazed Anything About This Is A Surprise

    I agree with your correction

  • Apr 9th, 2018 @ 2:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: I'm Amazed Anything About This Is A Surprise

    Yeah....I don't feel "sells your data wholesale to the highest bidder" properly desacribes the situation described in allegations of the FTC complaint. Seems more like facebook sold ads at standard rates and shares targeted info of those who clicked on the ads.

    Moreover, AS YOU NOTE, Facebook ceased the tactic 3 years before Facebook gave information to a Facebook app, at the Facebook user's request, without any financial transaction, to a researcher, who lied about what he was doing. Which also is not properly described as "Sell[ing] your data wholesale to the highest bidder".

    Your statement can't even be classified as hyperbole. Its just wrong, and contributes to the misinformation going around.

  • Apr 9th, 2018 @ 11:12am

    (untitled comment)

    I would wonder if this argument causes more issues than it solves, as noted by Truth Hurts, the billing documentation and payments are to century link. If century link wants to play the legal game that they are legally distinct, the plaintiffs might argue that their issue is with the service provided by century link, not the service under which the arbitration agreement holds, and therefore does not apply to the Century Link service. That then proceeds to question under what authority Century Link provided services, and goes down a hole from there.

  • Apr 5th, 2018 @ 1:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshevik

    I should say the whole point of the concern created by the deadspin video and the terrorist watchlist.

  • Apr 5th, 2018 @ 1:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Bullshevik

    Actually, the whole point of the deadspin video, and the terroist watchlist is that they are not presented as editorial content, but as part of the news broadcast, as the words of the anchors. Thats the concern with must-runs, they are not clearly labeled as editorial pieces, but as part of local news content. You seem to think that right vs left is the only form of political content - not true. Without associating directly with partisan affliation, political positions can be expressed. A must run profile of recent terrorist actions that includes non-terror activity to pad runtime expresses an anti-muslim sentiment, and fosters distrust of muslim's within the viewership. And, again without talking about whether the position is partisan, anti-muslim positions have been used as part of and individual candidate's platform. Discussing fake news, warning about media corporations using their influence to tell a narrative rather than being concerned with facts is a political position, given its echo of the President's own words. It gets very trippy when you hear media giant Sinclair Broadcasting using its influence to force its anchors to tell the narrative sans evidence about media giants using their influence to tell narratives sans evidence, while at the same time pushing an Islamic Terrorism narrative by discussing a Muslim who stole a pack of gum (*Rhetoric expression, exaggeration for emphasis).

    I have watched these segments outside of Last Week Tonight, and they do not make clear distinctions about 'editorial content' versus 'news reporting'. I do not expect National and International news segments to be blatantly editorial by nature. Moreover, we can not assume that these segments wont cause confirmation bias for those with a less critical eye. Just because John Oliver is producing laughs does not mean he has a point.

    You don't need to be using partisan language to be political.

  • Apr 5th, 2018 @ 9:21am

    Re: Bullshevik

    John Oliver's segment did a good job of finding some clearly biased viewpoints. I will not assign partisanship to these segments, but clear political bias nonetheless can be seen. He highlighted a 'terrorism watchlist' segment, a 'must-run' segment highlighting "Muslim" "terrorist" activity, which looks like a hatchet job on those weeks without major terrorist attacks, and ignores non-muslim terrorism. And while John Oliver is decidedly Liberal, that does not immediately invalidate his commentary on controversial must-runs.

  • Apr 3rd, 2018 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re: A case for a public option?

    Ummm....Yeah. Thats what he is saying. Taxpayer funded public broadband would provide immensive public benefit, and at a lower cost than single payer healthcare. Not sure what insight you think you are providing.

  • Mar 28th, 2018 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ah, therein you clearly misunderstand. As I noted, jury nullification exists not in statute, but in the inviolability of the juries decision. You can not be guilty of a crime which doesn't exist. Jury nullification is included in my position.

    That said "...if the state has merit in bringing this cases (sic) against said person and if the law being used to prosecute is justified in its application" is explictly the goal in determining Guilt or Innocence, they weigh the merits (evidence), and determine if the evidence proves that the elements of a specific crime have been fulfilled.

    I believe there is a place for jury nullification, and my statements are inclusive of it.

  • Mar 28th, 2018 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re:

    I agree, but there remains the value of having a non-state body, hopefully impartial, determining Innocence or guilt. It is true that american elites (those who make the law and therefore set the pay, and those who influence them) do not put a high value on that feature, but it is the elites that Juries are meant to push back against. And most americans dont place a high enough value on it, as it is something that doesn't affect them, primarily because of decades of propeganda that suggests that accusations=guilt. They wont need an impartial arbiter of the evidence. But that doesn't diminish the value it provides to the justice system.

  • Mar 28th, 2018 @ 9:57am

    (untitled comment)

    It is clear why the CAFC ruled this way. They demanded jury trials to route around the Judge in the case, who they knew from his previous ruling would be sympathetic to a finding of fair use. They assumed a Jury would, as they often do, find in favor of the IP holder, Oracle. The jury found differently, and the CAFC decided to overturn them.

    It upends the entire judicial system. Jury nullification exists only because of the way the Jury system works: the Jury's finding of fact, guilty or not guilty, is considered largely inviolable. The state can not go back and declare guilt after a finding of innocence by a jury. If this decision is allowed to stand, we would in fact lose any value in Jury trials. This is literally why Jury trials exist - to prevent this kind of state action.

  • Mar 26th, 2018 @ 11:00am

    Re:

    The problem is that defamation requires a false statement of fact. A statement that was not broadcast. Stormy might not have had a choice in the establishment of the implication - Anderson Cooper and the producers are likely the ones that determined what questions were asked and when. She might have clarified the answer in a question edited out of the broadcast. She was not the appropriate target for this ill-advised lawsuit.

  • Mar 26th, 2018 @ 10:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what pisses leftists off most...

    So, the issue is a lack of ability to pass intent in your writing. You stated that you love watching liberals loose their shit when trump uses their [liberals'] own tactics. Given that the context is an article criticizing the actions of Trump's former lawyer, the seeming intent of your post in its entirety is to state that liberals and by extension, Techdirt, are hypocrites, and that criticism seems targeted to dismiss the concerns addressed within. That we can't do anything, and the world is going to burn.

    That is why you get tagged with whataboutism, because you are using critism of 'liberal tactics' to dismiss criticism of a conservative's lawyer, adding in that the conservative is no true conservative, implying its somehow all Liberalism. Without the ability to determine your stated non partisanship by previous statement or posting history (because AC), that sounds like a hyper partisan statement.

  • Mar 26th, 2018 @ 10:03am

    (untitled comment) (as )

    Its kinda the Trump strategy though. He couldn't have done more to look guilty in the Mueller probe if he tried. It is the very problem we keep seeing with Trump's handling of the Stormy Daniels claims, he is, by his actions and words inviting questions about why it is bothering him so much. Apparently he learned that behavior from Cohen.

  • Mar 26th, 2018 @ 9:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Ah copyright 'enforcement'...

    Well, in theory he wouldn't need to. Its established in the record that NZ seized and/or allowed to be seized everything and handed it over to the US. But the seizure went beyond anything necessary to establish the crime, and physical assets were seized in a manner contrary to NZ law, with illegally obtained warrants. This establishes the NZ government as the proximate cause of his deprivation of those assets, as they should have protected the rights of a NZ citizen residing in NZ. If NZ has issues with curing the violations of his rights, they could certainly attempt to recover from the US themselves.

  • Mar 15th, 2018 @ 9:09am

    Re: Re: There are ALREADY Federal Rules by which STATES must work. (as )

    The key argument is that by the FCC claiming congress did not provide them regulatory authority, the States can then take such authority over the sales of broadband communication and adjudication of contract disputes via the 10th amendment. Future congressional action could still preempt the states, but until then the executive branch has no authority with which to preempt state action.

  • Mar 13th, 2018 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Tracking a judge's record

    So just provide mild context - this Judge has X% of rulings in this category overturned, which is [significantly lower than|Lower than|About|higher than|Significantly higher than] the average of X%.

    Video games have been doing this for quite some time.

    That said, while informative, this kind of summary information would only be useful for elected judges, I think.

  • Mar 9th, 2018 @ 3:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Reporters took time to document this

    Even as a publicity stunt, It has value. Reporting on the event only if it 'results in policy' misses value to the ongoing democratic process.

    Ars Technica recently did some great research on the Biden meeting on the same topic ~8 years ago, and how he interacted with industry reps, and how his mind changed, and his approached changed, as information was provided to him. It shows a clear process of Biden taking the talking points he was given, going in with an open mind, and changing his mind as clear scientific evidence was presented to him.

    Reporting on the Trump Meeting, shows a very different picture. Yes, it is similar to the pictures they keep painting of the Trump administration. But this news shows the current Administration's apathy for science and data based law making. It highlights the 'publicity stunt' nature of the Administration. This can help push Republicans to not re-nominate Trump under pressure from constituants to whom this subject matters (for or against, he did neither side favors with this stunt), and may provide ammunition for democrats up and down the card. It has value beyond the Legislative value.

More comments from James Burkhardt >>