renato’s Techdirt Profile

renatogoes

About renato




renato’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 31st, 2020 @ 4:38pm

    Re: Re: What better way?

    Let's not forget yahoo.

  • May 23rd, 2020 @ 8:51am

    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-tripadviso r

  • May 23rd, 2020 @ 8:47am

    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.

  • Jan 20th, 2020 @ 11:31am

    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.

  • Jan 18th, 2020 @ 7:02am

    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.

  • Dec 31st, 2019 @ 9:41am

    (untitled comment)

    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?

  • Dec 31st, 2019 @ 9:36am

    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.

  • Sep 9th, 2019 @ 9:32am

    (untitled comment)

    The problem with YouTube complying with local laws is that many local laws are written solely for the purpose of making censorship easier.

    Local laws like the DMCA?

  • Sep 6th, 2019 @ 10:17am

    (untitled comment)

    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.

  • Sep 5th, 2019 @ 1:14pm

    (untitled comment)

    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.

  • Aug 15th, 2019 @ 11:04am

    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.

  • Aug 1st, 2019 @ 9:59am

    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.

  • Jul 26th, 2019 @ 9:45am

    (untitled comment)

    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?

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 11:28am

    Re: First?

    > 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.

  • Jul 12th, 2019 @ 12:00pm

    Re:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxhDk-hwuo

    Just searched for "glitter bomb package thief" and it was the first video.

  • Jun 12th, 2019 @ 2:02pm

    Re: Re:

    What liability?

    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.

  • Jun 11th, 2019 @ 3:20pm

    (untitled comment)

    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?

  • May 24th, 2019 @ 8:36pm

    (untitled comment)

    The reality is that many people, in order to save time, simply click “OK” on the never-ending stream of pop-ups and most everyone I spoke to confess that they just move on when unable to access the desired website. Or, as one Twitter user told expressed, “I read a lot fewer articles in US papers/magazines.”

    I just realized that I only saw those for a short time, and my adblock has been hiding them.
    I thought the websites were not required to continue warning users, but I was wrong.

    But, if I never clicked on those "OK" buttons consenting to be tracked, does it means that those sites accessed using an adblock are violating GDPR?
    Where can I report them?

  • May 8th, 2019 @ 11:39am

    Re: Re:

    Most of the problem come from the lack of clarity on the writing.
    Ideas that propose to modify (or repeal) section 230, as McArdle argues are conflated with the trolls that say that it currently require political neutrality.

    Her point is that as facebook has a more specific editorial and political line of what is allowed and what is banned, it resembles more and more the organizations (and operations) that are not protected by Section 230 like media organizations.
    And, it could mean that the law could/should be modified to remove their protection.
    The last paragraph from that article, which immediately follows the quoted part on this article is:

    At the moment, social media platforms have nothing to fear, for they’re still protected by Section 230. But the more they come to dominate the consumption of information, and the more they use their power to shape it, the more likely it is that the law will change.

    If WaPo stopped posting its own original content and just said "Hello public, post your news stories here. Liberals only though. We'll remove it if it's conservative," they'd still get CDA 230 protection, as they should.

    Those grey areas are exactly the problem.
    If an user/columnist was payed just by a fraction of the ad revenue they bring, and had not work contract with the news organization, but merely adhere to its ToS, should Section 230 still apply?
    If you keep stretching it making the users more like a hired reporter by keeping a list of "top" users that are promoted by the news organization, would it still apply?

  • Apr 18th, 2019 @ 4:24pm

    (untitled comment)

    Finally someone has thought about the kids.

More comments from renato >>


This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it