Rocky 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4370) comment rss

  • On the post: Once More With Feeling: Banning TikTok Is Unconstitutional & Won’t Do Shit To Deal With Any Actual Threats

    Rocky ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2024 @ 02:02pm

    The data can be used to track you, even when you think you are anonymous. The data can be used by insurance companies to increase your premiums if they find something they think indicates a risky behavior or medical condition they don't like. The data can be used to track women visiting pregnancy centers. The data can be used to make tailored "propaganda" that only targets a very small group of people. The data can be used to guess your shopping history and adjust prices up because there's a good chance you'll still buy some items. The data can be used by employers to keep track of what you are doing in your free time, which in turn may give them a reason to make something up so they can fire you. The data can be used by hackers/black hats/foreign powers to target you for phishing etc to gain access to your bank, workplace's IT-system or other things. There are many more scenarios for using this data, the more benign are mostly about targeted advertising and such.

  • On the post: Auto Makers Are Selling Data On Your Driving Habits To Your Insurer Without Properly Informing You

    Rocky ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2024 @ 02:02pm

    Many modern cars have built in modems utilizing cell networks for example, one such system is OnStar by GM.

  • On the post: Investigation: ‘Gold Standard’ Of Evidence Turned To Pyrite By Colorado Crime Lab Employee

    Rocky ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2024 @ 08:08am

    My thoughts exactly. A lab should never know which case a DNA-sample belongs to, they shouldn't either know the identity (or identities) of the matched profile(s). Those investigating the related crime should never be allowed to talk to lab-technicians either, unless it's in court. That way you can submit control-samples randomly to better evaluate the labs performance while also avoiding undue influence from LEO's investigating a crime.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Rocky ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 02:54pm

    Not zero, but pretty clearly less than the benefits of ad rev social media generates off of it. I think if you wanted an exact dollar amount, you’d have to work at one of those news sites to know for sure.
    So you don't actually know the economics and are just offering up platitudes that FB must pay something because it's "unfair" if they don't. Do you know how many ads FB show in conjunction to external links? Is it for every link? Every tenth? What is the ration? Do you know how revenue FB gets from an ad that occurs next to a link? Do you have any answers to the above? Do you even have the tiniest inkling of the numbers? It doesn't matter what you think, what matters is factual knowledge, not feelz of "fairness" or somesuch nonsense.
    The threat to remove links entirely only works precisely because that traffic is valuable.
    "The traffic is valuable".... And that should actually tell you something profound, but apparently it's entirely lost on you.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Rocky ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 02:41pm

    They don’t monetize links alone directly, but they monetize the content of those articles/news.
    Just like what every other site does that have ads and links, but somehow FB is different.
    If you spend more time on Facebook reading about something, or talking to your friend about a news link they posted, that’s ad rev for Facebook.
    Ie, you want news orgs to be paid because 3rd parties are discussing their content on places that has ads? Hahahahahaha, omg. You want news orgs to be able to monetize 3rd party discussion since they may see ads. That's the logical conclusion of your argument. JFC..

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Rocky ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 02:36pm

    Yes, because the amount of money they’re making from the relationship should be reasonable.
    Just no. If I provide a service that I make gobs of money from, no one is entitled to that money except me. Do you even understand economy? The only relationship that matters is if there's a contract involved, and if there isn't, anyone demanding "I want some of your money" can just go an fuck themselves or they provide the service themselves.
    Just because you’re making nonzero money doesn’t mean it is. By that logic, you’re arguing that stuff like monopsony is a-ok, as long as the supplier makes some nonzero amount.
    But it isn't a monopsony, you claim it is but you haven't actually proven it is in any coherent way that makes sense. Who is the single buyer here?

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Rocky ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 02:22pm

    I’m not arguing that this is a good way to do it, I’m arguing that we shouldn’t pretend that Facebook isn’t trying to underpay.
    Actually, they should be paid for referring traffic to news sites. This is how referrals usually work, the site having the ads get a referral fee for each click through. Why shouldn't FB get a referral fee for driving traffic to a site? They are doing all the job?
    Link taxes are pretty problematic, but at the same time, there is a legitimate issue underneath it.
    What "legitimate issue" is that? That you and Murdoch have the opinion that FB et al should pay for driving traffic to news sites just because ads show up in a timeline? That's opinion, not a "legitimate issue". It has been proven that links on FB and other social media drives traffic and revenue, it has been proven that not linking to news sites tanks their revenue. You have yet to adequately explain why FB and others should pay for providing a free service that increases the revenue for a third party. You argument that "it's not fair" is just pure handwavium with no logic or economical/business reason behind it. As I've said before, the simple solution is that everyone stop linking to news sites. Most sites that did that would hardly experience a measurable drop in ad revenue while all news sites would have their ad revenue drop to a pittance and they would be forced to buy ads to drive traffic. That you refuse to see that the obvious thing here is that large media companies want to have the whole cake and eat it too. The normal state of things is that if you provide a service you get paid for it, you aren't supposed to be charged for providing it. And if someone tries to charge you for your service, you stop doing the service - it's that simple. In every other type of business, if someone tried to pull something analogous to a link tax they would be declared fucking idiots and their business would soon fold since no sane person would want to deal with them. That you have a hate-bonder for FB and can't reason yourself out of a wet paperbag because of it is entirely on you.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Rocky ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 08:25am

    The content that news sites generate, generates value for both companies. In a healthy model, the news sites should capture some of that. It’s not healthy if a large aggregator can captures too much of that value because it has more negotiating power. That’s a monopsystic type market failure.
    The solution is of course for the aggregator not to link to news sites then, the news sites can then capture all the value for themselves.
    Just because the news sites get some benefit (and they do), doesn’t mean it’s benefitting a fair amount. In a healthy market, you negotiate a split. Hence the example in the above article, which shows there’s very clearly some nonzero value being generated there, although you can argue on the exact amount.
    You are aware that in any other instance were a company want more eyeballs on their content, they have to pay for that privilege. Most companies would be ecstatic to get free advertising and eyeballs. The truth is that news sites benefit immensely from social media and it's specifically the very large news media corporations that are the proponents of link tax, like Newscorp, Springer etc. They know that if they can get the whole idea of link tax acceptable it'll kill the smaller players on the market.
    It’s not crazy to say “content creators should get paid fairly for their content on a site that monetizes that content”.
    It is crazy because they aren't actually monetizing the content, they are monetizing the interest in the content by providing links to it. I'm not sure you understand the distinction.
    Because whether something is fair depends on how much they’re benefitting from it. If the fair market value of something is $5, and you’re only getting paid $1, that’s not fair. You’re still directly benefitting by $1, though.
    A very naïve and simplistic argument that doesn't reflect reality. Who benefits most from getting 1 million views on a news article, the referrer or the news site? Compare that to getting only 10000 views on a news article because no social media want to pay for referring traffic. It all comes down to something called "contact cost" or CPM, a term used in advertising. If you aren't familiar with the concept then you also don't understand the economics of media and are arguing from a point of ignorance how the whole ecosystem work.
    The yellow pages aren’t (also) content, though. They’re ads. They’re not actually comparable. Something like news is both. Yes, they get an advertising benefit from links, but they’re also generating content that brings in eyeballs and ad rev for Facebook.
    It's directly comparable, the content of the media doesn't actually matter. Companies bought ads in the YP, people saw those ads while looking for information. Do you think it would make sense for companies in the YP getting paid because people could use the YP to find them next to an ad? Compare that to a news aggregator who list headlines + links to news sites while simultaneously having ads on the page.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Rocky ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 02:07am

    No, it’s not. There can be situations where both sides are bad guys. There isn’t always a good guy and a bad guy. They’re both bad, for different reasons, even if one is going to end up at a good result because of those bad reasons.
    And that's why one should try be consistent in judging specific actions regardless who is responsible for that action.
    That does not mean you have to pretend that Facebook is doing this purely because it’s not worth paying, and not because it’s flexing it’s negotiating muscle. You can just say you think it’s good that it’s flexing that muscle. That’s totally reasonable?
    Who flexed what muscle now? You kinda ignore that the whole thing came about because Murdoch's pet-politicians crafted a law to extract money from social media. FB is now saying fuck that and you think they are the ones flexing? You have really been gorging on Murdoch-media, haven't you?

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Rocky ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 02:00am

    It’s only on this specific issue where they stan it, and it’s specifically because people dislike link taxes. Which for some reason makes them want to defend FB, when it can be the case that link taxes are bad, and FB is also bad on this issue.
    You keep repeating this, but it's false because you don't seem to understand consistency on bit.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Rocky ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 01:50am

    When you stay on Facebook reading content (like news), they generate ad revenue. That ad revenue is more than $0.
    You don't read the news on Facebook, you get a head-line and a link to the news. Plus, I specifically asked what value is Facebook extracting beyond what is economically justifiable?
    Maybe you can tell me, why do you think the appropriate price for Facebook to pay is zero?
    Facebook could just stop providing links to news, that'll exactly show us who is extracting value from what and what the appropriate price is.
    The comment that I initially replied to specifically made the argument that FB was trying to drop it because it wasn’t economically worthwhile to FB. That comment was talking specifically about FB.
    So if someone doesn't like link taxes and defends Facebook because of it, that someone is now a Facebook "stan"? That was the argument you put forward. Kinda fucked up if you ask me...
    And the irony is, the reason FB and co don’t want this, is precisely because they’re extracting value from something they can get for free if they flex their market power, even if it’s worth paying for. Why pay for it if they don’t have to? That’s it’s own form of greediness.
    Anyone can place ads next to links, it's how the whole fucking internet has been working for decades at this point. But when FB does it, "Oh my god! The sky is falling! Facebook bad! Bad Facebook!". The moment someone has to pay for linking to another site you have started breaking the internet, period. What you call "extracting value" isn't, it's actually adding value - why else do you think the proponents of link tax are demanding payment which is only possible because an intermediary, like social media, adds value. This is easily proven by looking at what happened to news-sites that social media stopped linking to, they tanked hard. It seems you have bought Murdoch's arguments, hook line and sinker.
    And the only reason people are supporting it is because they dislike link taxes.
    No, that's just you not understanding the bigger picture which is this: Any argument for link tax is an argument for a broken and siloed internet.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Rocky ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2024 @ 03:34pm

    It can both be true that link taxes are bad, and that Facebook is a megacorp that is perfectly happy to leverage its size to extract extra value beyond what is economically justifiable. They’re not mutually exclusive.
    So tell us, what value is Facebook extracting beyond what is economically justifiable?
    You don’t have to stan for Facebook to dislike/fight link taxes, and people on Techdirt wouldn’t (and don’t) apply this level of credulity to anything else Facebook does/says. And for good reason.
    That's one big disingenuous argument since it isn't about Facebook, it's about the sheer greediness of people and companies that want link taxes to extract money from something they are getting for free.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Rocky ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2024 @ 03:24pm

    Why should one company pay another company if the first company does something for free that directly benefits the first company? And why does the second company think it's unfair that they aren't going to get paid from something they are already directly benefitting from? Imagine if some company had raised the same issue with yellow pages, people would have rightly called them greedy stupid little fuckers. Demanding payment for someone referring traffic to their site for free is pure greed, nothing more.

  • On the post: Twitter’s Former Top Execs All Sue Elon Over Missing Severance

    Rocky ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2024 @ 06:59am

    Eminently Guillotineable Monster Doctorow used the above to describe Exxon CEO Darren Woods, see https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/06/exxonknew/#more-8235

  • On the post: Elon Sues OpenAI For Breach Of Contract Over A Contract That Doesn’t Exist, Because It’s Not Acting The Way He Wants It To

    Rocky ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2024 @ 04:33pm

    And the logical extension to your argument then is that Mike owns your ass because you can't stop yourself coming here rabidly screaming in his face every other day. Why, it's almost like everything you do and say is some kind of projection. But do keep deluding yourself, you are very good at that.

  • On the post: Eminem Can’t Duck Deposition In Dumb Trademark Opposition He Initiated

    Rocky ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2024 @ 11:16pm

    Is this a case wherein the USPTO is asking the real Slim Shady to stand up?

  • On the post: Alabama Couple Awarded $1 Million Over Warrantless Raid Of Their House That Saw Cops Walk Off With All Their Cash

    Rocky ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2024 @ 03:29pm

    He sounds like the assholes you run across on some workplaces who get livid when you point out that the stupid shit they pull off at work is actively hurting the company.

  • On the post: We Can’t Have Serious Discussions About Section 230 If People Keep Misrepresenting It

    Rocky ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2024 @ 06:00pm

    No, it's not moderation. It would have been moderation if someone just deleted a message on their own server, but not if they try to delete the message on others peoples servers too.

  • On the post: We Can’t Have Serious Discussions About Section 230 If People Keep Misrepresenting It

    Rocky ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2024 @ 04:21pm

    Lets try again without clicking post by mistake. No, “cancelbotting” is actually mentioned together with section 230. Look under section 509 – Online family empowerment. The problem with his argument is that it's a mish-mash put together from different parts talking about different industries. The report only mentions "common carriers" in sections not relating to section 230, ie in the sections about cable, broadcast and telephone. It kind of gets even more silly, the paragraph about "cancelbotting" and section 230 reads in full: The conferees do not intend, however, that these protections from civil liability apply to so-called cancelbotting, in which recipients of a message respond by deleting the message from the computer systems of others without the consent of the originator or without having the right to do so. It's a reference to how some people nefariously tried to delete messages on other peoples Usenet-servers, so if one server-owner did that to other servers that server-owner would loose protection against liability that section 230 (c) (2) normally confers for moderation. TL;DR: The whole argument is ludicrous since it's built on things yanked out of context that are then mashed together into an incoherent mess. Seems that Mike nailed the title on this article.

  • On the post: We Can’t Have Serious Discussions About Section 230 If People Keep Misrepresenting It

    Rocky ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2024 @ 04:05pm

    No, "cancelbotting" is it actually talks about section 230. Look under section 509 - Online family empowerment,

Next >>