Was it really about covid?
IIRC, the tension between India and China arose from a border conflict where an (some) Indian soldiers died, and it spurred a lot of anti-China demonstrations in India, including some talking about removing Chinese apps from users phones.
The only judge who has yet to recuse herself from this case is married to the person prosecuting it. And yet, Judge Brnovich sees nothing wrong with presiding over it and denying discovery materials to the people attempting to defend themselves from AG Brnovich's attempt to turn Backpage's execs into pimps.
Aren't there any laws about conflicts of interests of judges and the parts in the legal processes in the US?
In Brazil, the law clearly says that a judge can't preside a process where some people related to them are already participating.
Is the amazon payment model really relevant to this case?
It seems that whatever method to allocate the money would be gamed by scammer (like Goodhart's law) and maybe even shape how honest authors shape their published work to squeeze a bit more money.
For example, if the payment was from book read (whatever counts as read), both scammer and authors would offer more and shorter books to inflate the variable used to distribute the money.
At least, they tried to keep it simple at the beginning and then started dealing with bad behavior after it became rampant, instead of just trying to make complex rules and spy harder on users' data.
The only problem is that customer will move on after the monopoly consolidates and do a price surging.
Even, uber, the oldest one of this kind, could not get a monopoly after several years and still operates in red every quarter.
If lyft declare bankruptcy tomorrow, uber will only get closer to declare it also, because if it increase its price to break even, people will use it much less.
It doesn't necessary require a mafia to make it work.
It seems that there is more money in other activities than extorting business owners for protection, specially if there's a chance to be punished for that, a news article complaining that those business owners have to pay someone because the police is completely useless looks very effective to correct the situation while an area having a good drug traffic is only reported if someone is directly hurt.
And, I don't believe most criminals are ready to bear the burdens needed to punishing those who defect and stay afloat with the backlash caused by it.
No reported crimes (and consequently fewer crimes with victims) is also beneficial for criminals, because they will have a lower chance of punishment.
And sometimes, since the police is more interested in being seem to be doing something and not really in solving the problem, a third criminal can be harassed for someone else's actions, and in this case you can have criminals policing themselves without a formal organization, and its increased power to coerce others, like business owners.
The solution is to not report anything to the police and hope that the criminals somehow control themselves, it might work if the drug-dealers punish the petty crimes that disturb their business or their clients.
It results in a area with a lot of victimless crimes, but no crime statistics.
It can get stable if the police go harder one the eventually reported crime in a "low"-crime area.
However, it won't work if someone defects and start reporting crimes because of an aversion to it and not because they were directed affected.
Another possible reason for collapse is if the police itself starts to use the area to extract resources from the residents, like the case reported in the article that you could buy protection from some selected guards probably related to the police.
Maybe the attendance requirement comes from outside the university.
In Brazil, the Ministry of Education requires that a degree contains at least n hours of courses, and those require an attendance of at least 75 %.
Several teachers didn't care at all if the students went to the classes or not, but they still had an attendance checking, usually just a list for the students to sign, which could be easily gamed and they didn't care.
For whatever it's worth, the USCIS has placed some limits on the use of fake social media accounts. They can only be used to passively view targeted accounts and aren't allowed to "follow" or "friend" any targeted accounts.
If they cannot interact with the targeted accounts, why do they need a fake account?
It looks like on those terms, the fake accounts are only used to bypass the requirement of an account to view the site contents, and even a official account from the DHS or the specific department would do the job.
The only explanation I can see is infiltrating semi-private groups on facebook, but it is not clear how it can be done or its usefulness.
It seems that it is just a remaining process that could work if the accounts were able to interact with the targets.
And, as the linked article also says, in the case of San Bernadino shooting, which motivated the increase of social media checking, the fiancee of the shooter was not screened, but also she and the shooter were using aliases.
This means, that their aim is completely misguided and doomed to fail by design, only catching the ones with the worst possible OPSEC.
Despite the point of persecuting those who cannot afford to fight back (is their intention to settle those lawsuits after scaring the users?), isn't it better that it will be analyzed by a uninterested third-party, the judiciary?
Tencent declined to comment on the cases. But in a document submitted in May after a court hearing against Jihua Ma, another of the bloggers, it said it opted against deleting the offending articles on WeChat because doing so “would further cause damage to Tencent’s reputation”.
If they believe a crime is being comited on their platform, shouldn't they have to remove it as they fill the lawsuit?
Does China has a section 230?
If not, the defendants should ask to include tencent as collaborators in their crimes.
It looks like the news companies are just pointing to have the power now but are not considering who really took their potential money.
Removing social media will not make people start reading more news from them, and the other ads that they had and were lost to craiglist are now poisoned by FOSTA.
Even if they succeed in repealing section 230, it will not make people start accessing them with the time that would have been spent on other platforms.
Without section 230, youtube, facebook, and twitter will cease exist as they are, but it will only spawn a new model where each user own its page (and it is liable by its content) while the old platforms became more like CDNs and keep monetizing them as it has been doing.
Is she, or her staff, trying to pass a message here, for example that they are not part of the system or are the underdog, or is it just ignorance of the law and they really hope to win something?
> And Netflix executives also seem to be slowly realizing that throwing around billions of dollars for mediocre international content at a mind-boggling scale may not be the winning strategy they originally surmised.
Quantity is literally worthless without quality. Better to have one really great show than 10 or 100 blah ones. Perhaps they have no idea how to recognize good content, and are just acquiring as much stuff as possible in hopes some of it will be good?
I'm not sure if they are spending money on them.
Some (most ??) countries have quotas of local shows or movies that need to be included, and even without a formal quota, users will also want the local popular shows.
For most of them, I guess there is no difference of licensing it locally or worldwide, and what matters is just getting in licensed by Netflix.
To process and provide what you have recorded to law agencies after receiving a subpoena.
If/when they regulate it, they will add a mandatory period to keep the data, as it is done with stores.
I think it won't last too long.
After a few subpoenas forcing people to handle information, and also some missing ones from those who already erased them people will hopefully stop keeping them for too long.
Why would you want to have this kind of liability?
Was it really about covid?
IIRC, the tension between India and China arose from a border conflict where an (some) Indian soldiers died, and it spurred a lot of anti-China demonstrations in India, including some talking about removing Chinese apps from users phones.
Aren't there any laws about conflicts of interests of judges and the parts in the legal processes in the US?
In Brazil, the law clearly says that a judge can't preside a process where some people related to them are already participating.
Is the amazon payment model really relevant to this case?
It seems that whatever method to allocate the money would be gamed by scammer (like Goodhart's law) and maybe even shape how honest authors shape their published work to squeeze a bit more money.
For example, if the payment was from book read (whatever counts as read), both scammer and authors would offer more and shorter books to inflate the variable used to distribute the money.
At least, they tried to keep it simple at the beginning and then started dealing with bad behavior after it became rampant, instead of just trying to make complex rules and spy harder on users' data.
Re: Re: What better way?
Let's not forget yahoo.
Re:
That guy created the best restaurant in tripadvisor from thin air.
If you do something like that, maybe doordash will want to make business with you. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/434gqw/i-made-my-shed-the-top-rated-restaurant-on-tripadvisor
Re:
The only problem is that customer will move on after the monopoly consolidates and do a price surging. Even, uber, the oldest one of this kind, could not get a monopoly after several years and still operates in red every quarter.
If lyft declare bankruptcy tomorrow, uber will only get closer to declare it also, because if it increase its price to break even, people will use it much less.
Re: Re: Re: Uhh...
It doesn't necessary require a mafia to make it work. It seems that there is more money in other activities than extorting business owners for protection, specially if there's a chance to be punished for that, a news article complaining that those business owners have to pay someone because the police is completely useless looks very effective to correct the situation while an area having a good drug traffic is only reported if someone is directly hurt.
And, I don't believe most criminals are ready to bear the burdens needed to punishing those who defect and stay afloat with the backlash caused by it. No reported crimes (and consequently fewer crimes with victims) is also beneficial for criminals, because they will have a lower chance of punishment.
And sometimes, since the police is more interested in being seem to be doing something and not really in solving the problem, a third criminal can be harassed for someone else's actions, and in this case you can have criminals policing themselves without a formal organization, and its increased power to coerce others, like business owners.
Re: Uhh...
The solution is to not report anything to the police and hope that the criminals somehow control themselves, it might work if the drug-dealers punish the petty crimes that disturb their business or their clients.
It results in a area with a lot of victimless crimes, but no crime statistics.
It can get stable if the police go harder one the eventually reported crime in a "low"-crime area. However, it won't work if someone defects and start reporting crimes because of an aversion to it and not because they were directed affected.
Another possible reason for collapse is if the police itself starts to use the area to extract resources from the residents, like the case reported in the article that you could buy protection from some selected guards probably related to the police.
Re: I don't get it...
Maybe the attendance requirement comes from outside the university.
In Brazil, the Ministry of Education requires that a degree contains at least n hours of courses, and those require an attendance of at least 75 %.
Several teachers didn't care at all if the students went to the classes or not, but they still had an attendance checking, usually just a list for the students to sign, which could be easily gamed and they didn't care.
The article says that wifi and bluetooth are used to track the students, but would it work with a student that can rely solely on its data plan?
Local laws like the DMCA?
If they cannot interact with the targeted accounts, why do they need a fake account?
It looks like on those terms, the fake accounts are only used to bypass the requirement of an account to view the site contents, and even a official account from the DHS or the specific department would do the job.
The only explanation I can see is infiltrating semi-private groups on facebook, but it is not clear how it can be done or its usefulness.
It seems that it is just a remaining process that could work if the accounts were able to interact with the targets.
And, as the linked article also says, in the case of San Bernadino shooting, which motivated the increase of social media checking, the fiancee of the shooter was not screened, but also she and the shooter were using aliases.
This means, that their aim is completely misguided and doomed to fail by design, only catching the ones with the worst possible OPSEC.
Despite the point of persecuting those who cannot afford to fight back (is their intention to settle those lawsuits after scaring the users?), isn't it better that it will be analyzed by a uninterested third-party, the judiciary?
If they believe a crime is being comited on their platform, shouldn't they have to remove it as they fill the lawsuit?
Does China has a section 230?
If not, the defendants should ask to include tencent as collaborators in their crimes.
Was social media that killed the traditional news?
It looks like the news companies are just pointing to have the power now but are not considering who really took their potential money.
Removing social media will not make people start reading more news from them, and the other ads that they had and were lost to craiglist are now poisoned by FOSTA.
Even if they succeed in repealing section 230, it will not make people start accessing them with the time that would have been spent on other platforms.
Without section 230, youtube, facebook, and twitter will cease exist as they are, but it will only spawn a new model where each user own its page (and it is liable by its content) while the old platforms became more like CDNs and keep monetizing them as it has been doing.
Re: Re: Re: You could save Hundreds by signing up NOW
$125 is the amount you receive just by registering.
If the breach caused you any other harm, you can apply for a higher amount.
Is she, or her staff, trying to pass a message here, for example that they are not part of the system or are the underdog, or is it just ignorance of the law and they really hope to win something?
Re: First?
Some (most ??) countries have quotas of local shows or movies that need to be included, and even without a formal quota, users will also want the local popular shows.
For most of them, I guess there is no difference of licensing it locally or worldwide, and what matters is just getting in licensed by Netflix.
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxhDk-hwuo Just searched for "glitter bomb package thief" and it was the first video.
Re: Re:
If/when they regulate it, they will add a mandatory period to keep the data, as it is done with stores.
I think it won't last too long.
After a few subpoenas forcing people to handle information, and also some missing ones from those who already erased them people will hopefully stop keeping them for too long.
Why would you want to have this kind of liability?