OA’s Techdirt Profile

ooa

About OA




OA’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 6th, 2019 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: 10 cents per page?

    $3 million can't be right. A government agency costing less than ten million a year?

    $3m is less than pocket change - the government spends more on bleach for cleaning supplies.

    This seems like unuseable, unnecessary and prejudicial commentary.

    A good argument could be made to make it a free service with costs that low.

    ??? It should be free. It is a service that provides access to public records by a government to a public that it serves and that funds it.

  • Jan 23rd, 2019 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: 'Our country/religion is SO pathetic, even words hur

    This is in response to this whole comment branch:

    Words have power. Can be significant, but how? why?

    The power words have is actually the power of communities (and individuals). Words can trigger, direct and focus this power usually by the communication of ideas.

    Bamboo Harvester is correct, but this does not truly invalidate OP's (That One Guy) comment. A common reason for suppressing broad categories of speech is to keep ideas from triggering communal power and harming power structures.

    ...people decrying such 'crimes' are under the impression that their beliefs are so laughably weak that they can't stand even mild criticism and/or questioning.

    'Beliefs' is the wrong focus. It is the power structures built around beliefs that is the issue. Even sincere, reasonable beliefs can be connected to people/organizations who are corrupted somehow, and are then fearful of the potential comeuppance.

    BTW, in a society, it is good to have power broadly seeded amongst its membership; this helps prevent any corruption by any subgroup from getting out of hand (we can all be tempted, but by different things, hopefully). [You also need some "higher faith" to prevent a coalescing around shared self-destructive attitudes.]

    ;tldr

    Suppressing speech can be a Bubble Sustaining Mechanism.

  • Jan 23rd, 2019 @ 10:40am

    Re: Okay, now I read this re-write, looks solid as PART of the c

    If ignore that, then you're simply ignoring that the basic pattern matches, which narrows it down to highly likely.

    So you backed up their arbitrary "science" with your own guesswork.

    Also, vehicle and large cash spend at same time.

    Circumstantial can certainly be accurate.

    A bunch of separate circumstantial evidence can come together and be collectively compelling. But, if that was the case here than why did they need the made up science?

    The pattern I match up here is that Techdirt always finds some criminal to defend.

    The pattern I find is that so called "law and order" advocates define criminality in arbitrary, self-serving, overly zealous, and incompetent ways. As a result, they decide that they are justified in using any thoughtless mechanism to fight said "criminality". From what I can tell, THAT is what Techdirt objects to.

  • Jan 13th, 2019 @ 12:15pm

    (untitled comment)

    I'm funnier. /s

  • Nov 6th, 2018 @ 5:28pm

    Re: MSNBC livestream

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmxYMDgy-BY

    Video unavailable
    "MSNBC LIVE | THE RACHEL MAD..." is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Tonda TMoseley.

  • Nov 6th, 2018 @ 5:03pm

    MSNBC livestream

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHnCLDGlcvs

    Video unavailable
    "MSNBC Live : The Midterm El..." is no longer available due to a copyright claim by NBC Universal

    While I was watching.

  • Oct 24th, 2018 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: merger synergy

    This is not exactly correct.

    The problem is not capitalism, or socialism, or communism or any other ism you can crap up.

    The problem is just humans.

    You are misusing this concept. [Ironically, today, I wrote a long comment under a different post that mentions 'isms' explicitly. I probably won't submit it though...]

    Please let me explain.

    Improper or unnecessary 'isms' are a significant part of the problem. They can encapsulate bad ideas, exaggerations, manipulations, half truths, etc... They can trigger tribalism and make use of the improper labeling of ideas. They are also excellent at promoting dehumanization. Some people exposed to 'isms' believe they understand the world. Bad 'isms' can turn the ideas of a fool into autonomous, unstoppable social movements. Perhaps the worst part, fake 'isms' displace real 'isms'...

    The statement, 'The problem is just humans', IN THIS CONTEXT, is carelessly vague and improper.

    Improper 'Isms' can take bad human tendencies and unnaturally give them the force of wisdom or knowledge.

    The problem is not about the smoke, intense heat or 3rd degree burns. The problem is just fire.

  • Oct 24th, 2018 @ 7:38am

    (untitled comment)

    Too often the word 'synergies' seems "tailor made", perhaps "handcrafted", for ridicule.

  • Aug 16th, 2018 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re: Requires Humans

    They are trying, and succeeding, in moving the cost of human checking onto Google.

    Probably only big, rich entities like Google could afford this cost. Smaller potential competitors can't compete with that.

  • Aug 15th, 2018 @ 12:38pm

    Re: Re:

    I was tempted to flag your comment for using the 'M' word. :)

  • Aug 15th, 2018 @ 12:31pm

    Re:

    I think they can be found in contempt of Congress. At the very least it's perjury. They can be jailed the moment the lie is discovered, I believe (if you are not powerful).

  • Aug 15th, 2018 @ 9:00am

    Re:

    *cause

  • Aug 15th, 2018 @ 8:59am

    (untitled comment)

    Testifying in front of Congress is a leading form of memory loss.

  • Aug 14th, 2018 @ 1:48pm

    Re: Is it a Thing or a Trade-off? It's neither

    ..it's too abstract to think in terms of a trade-off...

    A critique of being 'too abstract' is not meaningful in this context. Is the commentary reasonable? Does it grapple with the complexity of the issue in a way that can be built on?... This response seems like Concreteness Bias. Concrete assessments are not inherently more right or more real than abstracted ones.

    It might be easier to approach privacy as a price.

    Why is it 'easier'? Why is 'easier' better? What is "hard" about what Mr. Masnick wrote?

    Just as the price I pay to go to the store to pick up a tub of Chunky Monkey includes the fact that people will see where I go, when I go there, how I got there, what I bought and just how bad my fashion sense is, the price I pay for using the internet is much more than the $90 or so per month I pay Cox for the connection.

    Even worse, the cost for using a "free" service such as Facebook includes practically all my internet activity: websites visited, emails sent, emails received, torrents accessed, searches performed and how many 55-gallon drums of lube I have bought from Amazon. And, don't forget the metadata: when and how often I log on, how long I spend on each page, how much data I consume, etc.

    The problem lies in valuing this information. I think most people undervalue it, likely due to not understanding the consequences of this data gathering. So, let's project out a few years and see where all this leads to.

    You've recasted this with economic thinking, an analytical tool. Its a possible tool for some later stage. Good thoughts though. The value of 'the masses' data is arbitrarily devalued in a way similar to the devalue of labor... But, again, we've gotten ahead of ourselves. This article is addressing the fundamentals of privacy and the reality of a changing world with changing capabilities.

    Companies will start using AI (if they're not already) to analyze this data and take action. Imagine that an AI notices that I seem to be preparing to take a vacation. This AI uses Google Duplex-style technology to call me up and let me know that it has some excellent deals on vacation packages. Before I know it, I'm sitting in a timeshare presentation. How much do you think a timeshare company would pay for such a pre-qualified lead?

    Or, the AI notices that people who move from larger digs to smaller ones many times end up buying a shed for the backyard because they need the extra space. So it contacts people right after they move and recommends not only a shed with "free" installation, but where to put it in the yard and a color scheme that matches the new house. Then, it schedules delivery of the materials and a construction crew to install it. Now, you've got the AI doing the actual selling and making all the commission for the company that owns the AI.

    These are the "ethical" uses of this private information. How long until AI is calling up married, rich philanderers with the name and date of every hotel check in along with video from insecure video cameras of him and his various dates walking in to the hotel asking for hush money so that the wifey doesn't find out. Using facial recognition, the AI can double-dip by pulling the same thing on any of his dates that are married or dating. And, of course, the monetary demands will be set according to income.

    Today, the above is still in the realm of science-fiction, but in 10 or 15 years, I expect they will be commonplace.

    As our technological abilities increase the lessons of our collective humanity come to the forefront. What is ethical, what is "civilized", what is cruel or abusive, what is possible, what is actual progress, and many other questions have to be reevaluated as time passes. If we don't, at (optimistic) best, we are left with reflexive human behavior and whatever chaos that brings. Social Mechanics, like many other forces is subject to inertia. Injecting some wisdom now will make good future outcomes more likely. We may even being able to avoid the AI abuse described.

    So, how do we avoid such scenarios? I'm not sure that we can. But, if there is a solution, it will likely require more than a "data bank" that is controllable by the user. (Nice idea, BTW, but wholly inadequate for the above scenarios.) It will likely require completely re-architecting the internet itself to bake privacy into the protocols.

    So, ultimately, it's not a trade-off. It is a very high price that we are paying. The more that people realize how high a price that can be, the less they will be willing to share their information for any benefit whatsoever.

    This whole comment doesn't really contradict Mr. Masnick. I suspect that Mr. Strosnider is more comfortable with a response that is expressed in an arbitrarily concrete style. I find Mr. Masnick's 'abstract' handling to be proper enough, though it is missing something I can't put my finger on right now. I was hoping the comments would help.

  • Aug 14th, 2018 @ 11:46am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Because the survival of your business depends on you not understanding it.

    I was hoping for an answer instead this begins with a cliché.

    It’s disgusting ...<snip>... as they do.

    Besides distilled hostility, this is just a meaningless string of 'trigger' words and phrases.

    I remember when you where less compromised, I miss that Insightful writing.

    Overwhelming/uncompromising "passion" on whatever POV is being "expressed" by this comment does not it right or even coherent.

  • Jul 30th, 2018 @ 11:37am

    (untitled comment)

    The only way to grant the sheriff's claims credence is to assume he believes the "Fast and Furious" movies are a series of documentaries.

    Physics documentaries.

  • Jul 19th, 2018 @ 10:46am

    (untitled comment)

    Though I have what feels like an infinite number of thoughts on this, I will say, for now, EXCELLENT POST!. Starting from the title, the post strongly suggests thoughtfulness and attentiveness to the world that exists and the world that can exist. It is not easy to coherently put together these kind of thoughts. Kudos.

  • Jul 13th, 2018 @ 12:24pm

    Filed Under:

    Fraud Based Economy

  • Jul 10th, 2018 @ 1:35pm

    Rent Seeking: The Next Generation

    It seems these ISPs want to "wet their beak" on all the profitable benefits that this age of the Internet is providing and will provide. It's not enough to profit by providing, to the best of their ability, convenient and effective means to join the world's interconnected community. No. They got to get a "piece of the action". Instead of contributing society (and being rewarded for it), they would siphon from society's intended output, while distorting and stifling that output. Afterall, "you can be anything you want in this world".

  • Jun 26th, 2018 @ 11:22am

    Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 26th, 2018 @ 4:29am

    It's not just the government that is going fascist. It is public discourse as well.

    Bravo. Government and the governed are not as separate as it often appears.

More comments from OA >>