I'm slightly confused how it makes sense from MacDonalds' standpoint to work with Taylor. I don't go to Mac often but I heard this "the ice cream machine at Mac is always broken" thing so often I though it was a meme, not reality.
How does it make sense for them that every time they make a commercial for the McFluffy, or whatever it is called, everybody is reminded of their crappy service?
If I was a negotiator for MacDonalds I would negotiate fixed rates for maintenance and a minimum up-time requirement, especially if I heard every other day that the damn machines are always broken. I understand that many are franchise holders but that is the point of franchising isn't it, collective bargaining power?
Well those arguments would get much more weight if they came from a place of intellectual honesty and consistency. There is a significant overlap between the anti-choice people and the people that are absolutely and totally fine with post-natal abortion, a.k.a. the death penalty.
Also contrast this to stand-your-ground laws. Many people that say that a woman has to carry another "human being" to term if it inadvertently wanders in her uterus unwanted, also say it's fine to shoot someone if they're vaguely threatening you. Trayvon Martin was an actual human being, not a clump of cells, with feelings and a functioning heart and brain and still Zimmerman was allowed to shoot him unpunished.
And don't get me started on police shootings.
So, if Texas Repugnantans are open to discussing protection of all live they can talk otherwise it's clear that protection of the sanctity of human life is not their goal.
I'm always a bit confused why exploited workers don't look at police unions and think "Hey, perhaps a union would be a good idea!"
On the one hand we have unionized police that are practically free from consequences whatever they do, while on the other hand we have non-unionized Amazon workers who can't even negotiate a toilet break...
I'm not saying that unions are the panacea to runaway globalized capitalism but perhaps if there is a significant power imbalance they might play a part.
We can't have a society where people have no personal responsibility or obligation to make proper risk assessments. That way madness lies.
Most cars can go (way) over the legal speed limit. There is a reasonable expectation that if you buy a car that can go that fast, some people will go that fast. You can't sue your car manufacturer for the consequences of irresponsible driving though. Note that speed limiters are an extremely easy and existing fix for driving over the speed limit but nobody sued Ford because they didn't build them into each car.
The interesting part about that particular list is that for sure people tried to prevent the information from getting out. But, once it was out, there was no coordinated effort to disappear it again. Or, if there was, it was very unsuccessful.
The Abu Graib pictures were all over, Weinstein accusers popped up on every streetcorner and plenty of books have been written about the run-up to Iraq II. It is also very easy to create an even longer list of scandals that came out like, the mother of them all, Watergate, but also Iran Contra, the Mi Lai massacre, Bill Cosby and so forth.
So, while dark secrets definitely exist, it is very difficult to control them once they're out there. That, logically, actually speaks against the idea that once something is "censored" it must be true. Truth is difficult to censor.
"Strategic Response Group"
Mental picture:
A group of people standing around a map, looking pensive, stroking their chin and moving a marker on the map a bit.
Reality:
Burly goon squad muscle holding bicycles in front of their chest screaming "BLAM! BLAM!" at you.
Supervisors should consider the preservation of evidence as secondary to the safety of the public and department personnel
This is a strange sentence... I can read this to mean that if the safety (indemnity?) of colleagues is at stake it is also allowed to destroy evidence?
I actually start using it more sometimes, specifically with more informal, one on one calls, and with people I like because I haven't seen them in person for such a long time.
Personally I'm quite okay with this situation. It also allows me to do presentations to customers without going to their office which, in my case, could involve transcontinental flights. I can now do presentation in the morning to India and in the evening to the US. Previously they would've expected me to turn up in person. I do notice that doing presentations online is pretty exhausting though, more so than doing them "live" for some reason.
Now, if any of that branding out in the wild brings to mind Monster Energy, you need help.
Well, if I saw this in the wild I would think "I hope Monster Energy doesn't see this because for sure they will sue..." So I guess I need help to cure me of Techdirtritus...
While I do agree that FB and Google should pay more taxes, locally if possible, I also think that if you want to charge more tax, you have to change the tax code. Not do something like this.
Also tax is usually for the government while this is going to news providers.
I failed to present a compelling argument it seems, probably because I departed from a weak position (If your position is weak, look strong but don't engage, nincompoop - Not Sun Tzu). I think however that our views are not far apart.
I owe it to myself though to rephrase my position to try to wrestle it into some semblance of coherence. So, here goes.
We were talking about Government censorship and I feel that Merkel's position was quite the opposite of that. She was concerned that a private platform had the power to unilaterally cut off a man that speaks for 70 million Americans. We should here also recognize that Twitter functioned as the Pied Piper for all the other platforms who now felt safe to also ban the Trumpeter from their platform.
While we could like the resulting Trumpless silence, as I strongly suspect Merkel does too, we never make rules and legislation for situations where we like the outcome or when the decision maker is on our side. We make them for when the decisions are made by people that we do not like. So that, even if we don't like the decision, we can still accept that they were consistent and according to law and order. That might hearken back to Merkel's recognition of her country's dark past, by the way.
I can sympathize with that sentiment and I think that the situation bears thinking about.
Yes I know, weak tea "Let's think about something". Not a clarion call to action but it's all I got.
If people took the time to research and choose the platforms that best met their needs, we wouldn't be in the state of false dilemma where either a corporation or government has to make the choice for you.
Not quite. I can make a conscious decision to not go on Parler (and I did) but that still doesn't mean we, as a society, should allow everything that went on there. At the same time hypothetically a situation could arise where a platform is so powerful that you'd have a hard time avoiding it. If they started to moderate certain speech, potentially disadvantaging certain groups, that might be something that we, as a society, might not want either.
(note: I specifically mentioned spectrum, indicating that I don't feel that it's a "dilemma", so an either-or decision. I think there must be a system of checks and balances but I'm not smart enough to think of a system that would work)
I think you'd be guessing wrong. I'm confident she's acutely aware of German's history, especially since she was born in East Germany.
Despite its history though, Germans have a fundamentally different view of Government from Americans. Americans see government interference as inherently bad and something that must be limited as much as possible. Germans have a more benevolent look of central government where a high level of government involvement is required but you do need to ensure that the involvement is done in the proper way.
(Yes, the "positions" are exaggerated and don't account for a wide range of opinions existing in both countries but as shorthand I think they will serve)
Which now brings me to how I interpreted what she said. What I heard was that she was concerned that private companies have the kind of power that can switch off whole political organizations. A concern I've heard from many sides. In a more German (Merkel) view companies shouldn't have this kind of power but it should belong to a (benevolent) government.
It's a not unreasonable position to hold, regardless of your county's history. It's also not unreasonable to say you don't want governments to have that kind of power. To be honest I'm uncertain where I fall on this spectrum. It seems companies shouldn't act as our National Keeper of Morals but governments can also not be trusted unconditionally.
Re: Re: What is the point for Big Mac?
I thought the point was to be able to benefit from the parent's brand identity and marketing.
Fair enough. So can we settle for a point?
What is the point for Big Mac?
I'm slightly confused how it makes sense from MacDonalds' standpoint to work with Taylor. I don't go to Mac often but I heard this "the ice cream machine at Mac is always broken" thing so often I though it was a meme, not reality.
How does it make sense for them that every time they make a commercial for the McFluffy, or whatever it is called, everybody is reminded of their crappy service?
If I was a negotiator for MacDonalds I would negotiate fixed rates for maintenance and a minimum up-time requirement, especially if I heard every other day that the damn machines are always broken. I understand that many are franchise holders but that is the point of franchising isn't it, collective bargaining power?
Re: Re:
Well those arguments would get much more weight if they came from a place of intellectual honesty and consistency. There is a significant overlap between the anti-choice people and the people that are absolutely and totally fine with post-natal abortion, a.k.a. the death penalty.
Also contrast this to stand-your-ground laws. Many people that say that a woman has to carry another "human being" to term if it inadvertently wanders in her uterus unwanted, also say it's fine to shoot someone if they're vaguely threatening you. Trayvon Martin was an actual human being, not a clump of cells, with feelings and a functioning heart and brain and still Zimmerman was allowed to shoot him unpunished.
And don't get me started on police shootings.
So, if Texas Repugnantans are open to discussing protection of all live they can talk otherwise it's clear that protection of the sanctity of human life is not their goal.
Re: Stop asking, start issuing demands
I'm always a bit confused why exploited workers don't look at police unions and think "Hey, perhaps a union would be a good idea!"
On the one hand we have unionized police that are practically free from consequences whatever they do, while on the other hand we have non-unionized Amazon workers who can't even negotiate a toilet break...
I'm not saying that unions are the panacea to runaway globalized capitalism but perhaps if there is a significant power imbalance they might play a part.
Re:
But all the dead people voted for Biden, so we can't really trust them can we?
Combining 2 TechDirt topics here
For those interested, a comparison of the rigor applied by gamers and scientists:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/07/gamers-are-better-scientists-catchin g-fraud/619324/
It seems science should do better, as also the above story shows.
Re:
We can't have a society where people have no personal responsibility or obligation to make proper risk assessments. That way madness lies.
Most cars can go (way) over the legal speed limit. There is a reasonable expectation that if you buy a car that can go that fast, some people will go that fast. You can't sue your car manufacturer for the consequences of irresponsible driving though. Note that speed limiters are an extremely easy and existing fix for driving over the speed limit but nobody sued Ford because they didn't build them into each car.
Re: Re: Re:
The interesting part about that particular list is that for sure people tried to prevent the information from getting out. But, once it was out, there was no coordinated effort to disappear it again. Or, if there was, it was very unsuccessful.
The Abu Graib pictures were all over, Weinstein accusers popped up on every streetcorner and plenty of books have been written about the run-up to Iraq II. It is also very easy to create an even longer list of scandals that came out like, the mother of them all, Watergate, but also Iran Contra, the Mi Lai massacre, Bill Cosby and so forth.
So, while dark secrets definitely exist, it is very difficult to control them once they're out there. That, logically, actually speaks against the idea that once something is "censored" it must be true. Truth is difficult to censor.
Naming
"Strategic Response Group"
Mental picture:
A group of people standing around a map, looking pensive, stroking their chin and moving a marker on the map a bit.
Reality:
Burly goon squad muscle holding bicycles in front of their chest screaming "BLAM! BLAM!" at you.
I have trouble parsing this
Supervisors should consider the preservation of evidence as secondary to the safety of the public and department personnel
This is a strange sentence... I can read this to mean that if the safety (indemnity?) of colleagues is at stake it is also allowed to destroy evidence?
Re: US Navy Pirates
Well, if you have the government's permission you are technically a privateer...
Re:
Same here. Internally we almost never use video.
I actually start using it more sometimes, specifically with more informal, one on one calls, and with people I like because I haven't seen them in person for such a long time.
Personally I'm quite okay with this situation. It also allows me to do presentations to customers without going to their office which, in my case, could involve transcontinental flights. I can now do presentation in the morning to India and in the evening to the US. Previously they would've expected me to turn up in person. I do notice that doing presentations online is pretty exhausting though, more so than doing them "live" for some reason.
Do I need help?
Now, if any of that branding out in the wild brings to mind Monster Energy, you need help.
Well, if I saw this in the wild I would think "I hope Monster Energy doesn't see this because for sure they will sue..." So I guess I need help to cure me of Techdirtritus...
Re: Re:
While I do agree that FB and Google should pay more taxes, locally if possible, I also think that if you want to charge more tax, you have to change the tax code. Not do something like this.
Also tax is usually for the government while this is going to news providers.
Re: Re: Maybe the link and snippet tax was a red herring.
Murdoch news helps liberal governments get re-elected.
He does? Do you know who owns Fox?
Incompatible with democracy
I think Murdoch is incompatible with democracy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a fan of history I'm guessing
I failed to present a compelling argument it seems, probably because I departed from a weak position (If your position is weak, look strong but don't engage, nincompoop - Not Sun Tzu). I think however that our views are not far apart.
I owe it to myself though to rephrase my position to try to wrestle it into some semblance of coherence. So, here goes.
We were talking about Government censorship and I feel that Merkel's position was quite the opposite of that. She was concerned that a private platform had the power to unilaterally cut off a man that speaks for 70 million Americans. We should here also recognize that Twitter functioned as the Pied Piper for all the other platforms who now felt safe to also ban the Trumpeter from their platform.
While we could like the resulting Trumpless silence, as I strongly suspect Merkel does too, we never make rules and legislation for situations where we like the outcome or when the decision maker is on our side. We make them for when the decisions are made by people that we do not like. So that, even if we don't like the decision, we can still accept that they were consistent and according to law and order. That might hearken back to Merkel's recognition of her country's dark past, by the way.
I can sympathize with that sentiment and I think that the situation bears thinking about.
Yes I know, weak tea "Let's think about something". Not a clarion call to action but it's all I got.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a fan of history I'm guessing
Not a big fan of letting Nazi's fester out of sight.
Neither am I a big believer in the unlimited magic of the free market to fix everything. Making profit is a healthy driver. Up to a point.
Re: Re: Re: Not a fan of history I'm guessing
If people took the time to research and choose the platforms that best met their needs, we wouldn't be in the state of false dilemma where either a corporation or government has to make the choice for you.
Not quite. I can make a conscious decision to not go on Parler (and I did) but that still doesn't mean we, as a society, should allow everything that went on there. At the same time hypothetically a situation could arise where a platform is so powerful that you'd have a hard time avoiding it. If they started to moderate certain speech, potentially disadvantaging certain groups, that might be something that we, as a society, might not want either.
(note: I specifically mentioned spectrum, indicating that I don't feel that it's a "dilemma", so an either-or decision. I think there must be a system of checks and balances but I'm not smart enough to think of a system that would work)
Re: Not a fan of history I'm guessing
I think you'd be guessing wrong. I'm confident she's acutely aware of German's history, especially since she was born in East Germany.
Despite its history though, Germans have a fundamentally different view of Government from Americans. Americans see government interference as inherently bad and something that must be limited as much as possible. Germans have a more benevolent look of central government where a high level of government involvement is required but you do need to ensure that the involvement is done in the proper way.
(Yes, the "positions" are exaggerated and don't account for a wide range of opinions existing in both countries but as shorthand I think they will serve)
Which now brings me to how I interpreted what she said. What I heard was that she was concerned that private companies have the kind of power that can switch off whole political organizations. A concern I've heard from many sides. In a more German (Merkel) view companies shouldn't have this kind of power but it should belong to a (benevolent) government.
It's a not unreasonable position to hold, regardless of your county's history. It's also not unreasonable to say you don't want governments to have that kind of power. To be honest I'm uncertain where I fall on this spectrum. It seems companies shouldn't act as our National Keeper of Morals but governments can also not be trusted unconditionally.
More comments from Narcissus >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Narcissus.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt