urza9814 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (301) comment rss

  • On the post: Michigan State Police Spend The Weekend Getting Ratioed For Bragging About Stealing $40,000 From A Driver

    urza9814 ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2020 @ 12:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "If the driver does something to communicate that you're following too closely, such as flashing their hazards or their brake lights at you, and you don't back off, at that point it's definitely a threat. "Start moving faster, in violation of the law, or I will hit you."" That is not being communicated clearly enough to constitute a legal threat. Personally, I would probably interpret that action as "Wait I want to finish reading your stickers"...because I have a lot of them and get a lot of reactions to them. "Even if they have no intention of actually hitting you, it's still very much a credible threat, because it means that anything you do to slow down could cause you to brake right into them." That may constitute negligence, but it does not constitute a threat. By your logic anyone drinking a coffee while they're driving is also guilty of making threats against everyone else on the road. That's not how those laws work. If your interpretation is correct, why did DUI laws ever get passed? Why did cellphone bans ever get passed? Why did reckless driving laws ever get passed? All of those crimes are just a form of "credible threats" and can be handled under one pre-existing law, right? All those other laws are just a waste of paper! Inspections on elevators? Not necessary, not maintaining it is a "credible threat" that will get you arrested. FDA regulations? Not necessary, unsafe food is a "credible threat". Automotive safety standards? Well, if you produce a car without seatbelts, that constitutes threatening to assault your customers! Brilliant work, now we can repeal all other laws, right?

  • On the post: Michigan State Police Spend The Weekend Getting Ratioed For Bragging About Stealing $40,000 From A Driver

    urza9814 ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2020 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, but standing on the sidewalk swinging your fists back and forth is not a credible threat, even if someone happens to walk into them and get punched (that would of course be an assault once it happens, but it's not a threat until then). Driving too close is not the same as threatening to run someone over. Not even close. Sometimes people do it because they're angry at the person in front of them. Sometimes they do it because they're from a more urban area where typical following distances tend to be shorter. Sometimes they'll do it to read a bumper sticker. Sometimes they'll do it because they suck at driving or they're rushing to get over before missing their exit. Are you seriously going to assert that ALL of these situations constitute a "credible threat" of an impending assault?

  • On the post: Michigan State Police Spend The Weekend Getting Ratioed For Bragging About Stealing $40,000 From A Driver

    urza9814 ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2020 @ 08:25am

    Re: NOW how much would you pay?

    At this point I think one of the biggest problems is that people have some twisted belief that money is always clean and always amoral....that business transactions exist in their own special world entirely divorced from the rest of reality. Just last night I spent a few hours arguing with someone who kept insisting that even if the owner and founder of a business is funneling millions of dollars that they get from that business into the WBC or the KKK or whatever, it's immoral to criticize the business because of that. You shouldn't leave bad reviews, you shouldn't call them to complain, you shouldn't boycott, you shouldn't involve the business in any way. Because apparently ignoring where the money ends up is some kind of high moral ideal. So many people -- generally GOOD people -- will sit there and honestly argue that it's actually immoral to try to avoid financing evil. And then they wonder why there's so many sociopathic billionaires running everything. WHERE DO YOU THINK THEY GET THOSE BILLIONS??

  • On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible; Naughty Kids In Wuhan Edition

    urza9814 ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2020 @ 02:06pm

    Re:

    But how do you define "users"? Is it everyone who ever downloaded the app? Everyone who ever logged in? Everyone who logged in in the past day? Everyone who installed it once upon a time and forgot about it and left it running as a background service? I have a lot of installed apps that could break and I wouldn't notice. I even have some apps that I use daily that could have major bugs in major features and I would never notice because I'm only using one minor piece of the app. I don't want to be giving others a false impression that these apps work well when I really don't know or care. As I posted elsewhere on this article, I think a better method would be to weight reviews based on the play/usage time of the user writing the review. So you still only get reviews from people who are actually invested in the app in some way, but one review from a loyal, long-term user will overrule hundreds from people who are just review bombing.

  • On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible; Naughty Kids In Wuhan Edition

    urza9814 ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2020 @ 01:53pm

    Re: Re:

    Meh, that's still providing useful information about replayability, so it would be a good metric to have in addition to a star rating. But even better I think would be to weight star ratings based on the play/use time. A one star review from someone who has played a hundred hours counts a hundred times more than a one star review from someone who played for less than an hour. And you'd need some expiry method too, so that a five star review from someone who hasn't logged in for a year isn't overruling newer ratings. So maybe [star rating] * [play time - time since last login]...and then normalize that by dividing by the value as if every user had given five stars.

  • On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible; Naughty Kids In Wuhan Edition

    urza9814 ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2020 @ 12:25pm

    Re: Re: The problem isn't the moderation

    If you don't trust the manufacturer of the app, why are you installing it? In most cases I trust them more than I trust Google. Google catches the obvious malware, but they're also the delivery system for the less obvious malware. Moderating for viruses is no easier than moderating for content (it's probably harder, as bad content often isn't trying to hide that fact.) and malware has gotten through in the past and will in the future. Better to download from a reputable source in the first place rather than downloading any random garbage that pops up in a search result and assuming it's safe.

  • On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible; Naughty Kids In Wuhan Edition

    urza9814 ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2020 @ 11:26am

    The problem isn't the moderation

    I would argue that moderation isn't really the problem here, the problem is schools relying on third-party services that they have no control over and which were designed for a very different use case. It's an easy enough problem to solve, just post an APK on your own website and nobody can take that down but you.

  • On the post: PetNet 'Smart' Pet Feeders Go Offline For A Week, Customer Service Completely Breaks Down

    urza9814 ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2020 @ 10:11am

    Re: How bad is this design?

    They do claim that it would do exactly that. But customers report otherwise. So either they tried to implement that and it just didn't work right...or they did something stupid like breaking if it couldn't verify their subscription was valid. It's not entirely unreasonable for something like this to require external servers rather than trying to sort out NAT traversal and dynamic IPs and all of that. And it's not unreasonable for something that requires external servers to require a subscription to maintain them. And it's not entirely unreasonable for something to stop working if your subscription expires. Reasonable decisions when taken in isolation, with a rather unreasonable result. Ultimately I think what it comes down to is that people don't care. People who actually give a damn about their pet wouldn't use a device like this in the first place (it's not gonna WALK the dog, is it? So you still gotta hire a sitter unless you're just keeping it locked up all day.) Instead, you've got people buying the cheapest device possible, with the possibility of failure not even entering their mind, or figuring they'll just go after the company if it does. And that means a device that actually does the job right will have a tough time entering the market since this kind of garbage will be the dominant (and likely cheaper, at least up-front) platform.

  • On the post: PetNet 'Smart' Pet Feeders Go Offline For A Week, Customer Service Completely Breaks Down

    urza9814 ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2020 @ 07:35am

    Re: Re: Lazy

    Well yeah...and this is why I don't have a pet. Always had a couple dogs and a cat growing up...but we had two parents with fairly consistent hours, two kids, and multiple neighbors who were happy to help out when necessary. I'd like a pet myself one day, but until I have the necessary support to know I can ensure it is properly cared for, I'm not doing that.

  • On the post: Rep. Cicilline Wants To Remove Section 230 Protections For Platforms That Host 'Demonstrably False' Political Ads

    urza9814 ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2020 @ 01:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Partly makes sense

    "Facebook exercise no more control over adverts than they do over user posts." Facebook's own website seems to say otherwise:
    https://facebook.com/business/help/2115855188432216 "Also note, if you target audience is you followers on Facebook, just write up your ad and post it on your page. This also means that the distinction between user posrts and adverts is not always clear cur." Right, but that's posted from a user account, distributed the same as any other post by that user account, and doesn't go through any kind of approval process. So yes, those shouldn't be restricted, because they're published by the user and not by Facebook itself. And this law wouldn't restrict those either, since they wouldn't be "knowingly" published by the service provider. Whether or not they could as advertisement is debatable as well -- it depends how the bill actually defines "advertisement", as it's not uncommon for that term to be defined in a way that requires a payment of some kind.

  • On the post: Rep. Cicilline Wants To Remove Section 230 Protections For Platforms That Host 'Demonstrably False' Political Ads

    urza9814 ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2020 @ 01:08pm

    Re:

    "when a legitimate complaint of defamation is made, they should remove the hurtful, ruinous, false content." The only legitimate way to determine what is a "legitimate complaint of defamation" is in a court of law, and such courts already have the authority to compel the removal of such content. And if the content is actually illegal, it is not protected by section 230 to begin with. Otherwise, you have to leave the determination of what is "legitimate" up to the service providers, and let them decide what to remove...which they would not be able to do without the protection for content moderation contained in section 230.

  • On the post: Rep. Cicilline Wants To Remove Section 230 Protections For Platforms That Host 'Demonstrably False' Political Ads

    urza9814 ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2020 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Re: Partly makes sense

    OK...so how do I go post my ad on Facebook by myself without going through any Facebook staff? Because I would think that is what is meant by "user content". The ad model -- I pay them, I give them some specifications, we agree to contract terms, they review the content of the ad, and they they publish it themselves -- doesn't look like user content to me. By that definition why couldn't a newspaper could say that every article they publish is just "user content", with the individual journalists being the users?

  • On the post: Rep. Cicilline Wants To Remove Section 230 Protections For Platforms That Host 'Demonstrably False' Political Ads

    urza9814 ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2020 @ 12:06pm

    Partly makes sense

    Aren't they ALREADY liable for these kinds of ads? Section 230 protects against liability for USER content. Ads aren't user content, are they?

  • On the post: CBP Employees Obtain New Accountability Shield With 'Security Agency' Designation

    urza9814 ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2020 @ 08:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Well, Trump???? is king now.

    Yeah, let's make the Techdirt crew wade through a bunch of off-topic submissions...because I don't see how such a submission would be in any way relevant to the topics this site reports on.

  • On the post: When You Set Out To Block Misinformation, You Can Wind Up Blocking A Hero Like Li Wenliang

    urza9814 ( profile ), 12 Feb, 2020 @ 08:01am

    Re: The Great Leader doesn't like it, therefore it isn't true

    I think this is the wrong argument and the wrong lesson. I don't see any evidence that the problem you are discussing actually describes what happened. The problem is that the official truth does not and cannot account for the latest information. The official truth is what was true yesterday. Most of what was false yesterday is still false today, but when new information comes in, it can be hard to differentiate it from the outright fraud unless you're actually doing in-depth analysis...and you can't possibly do in-depth analysis of every single article, every post, every tweet, etc. In theory a lot of people would say that hiding information that those in power don't like isn't a problem in a democratic state, as those in power should generally represent the will of the people. Hiding information solely because it's new, however, is a much stronger problem statement IMO.

  • On the post: YouTube Takes Down Live Stream Over Copyright Claim…Before Stream Even Starts

    urza9814 ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2020 @ 07:41am

    Re: Re:

    That is the weirdest way I have ever seen of spelling President Clinton's name...

  • On the post: CBS Gets Angry Joe's YouTube Review Of 'Picard' Taken Down For Using 26 Seconds Of The Show's Trailer

    urza9814 ( profile ), 31 Jan, 2020 @ 01:38pm

    Re:

    The Ninth Circuit disagrees. See the opinion in Lenz v. Universal. The DMCA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notice.

  • On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism

    urza9814 ( profile ), 31 Jan, 2020 @ 08:02am

    Re: Let's see the middle ground

    How that would affect this case seems a bit unclear to me. On the one hand, you assert that they were generally held to be a level of government, and therefore would presumably be required to protect civil rights such as free speech. On the other hand, that was before the law was rewritten. Now they must comply with federal/state/local laws...but do those changes also make the "4th level of government" explicit now? Because otherwise it seems plausible that courts would now rule the other way. They're expected to interpret the will of the legislature, and if the law was rewritten and the previous assumptions were not included in that law, then a case could be made that the legislators clearly did not intend for that to be part of the law, which could result in judges ruling the other way and giving HOAs the right to restrict speech of their residents -- if they aren't a government agency, then restrictions on speech don't violate those laws.

  • On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech

    urza9814 ( profile ), 31 Jan, 2020 @ 06:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    We also need to look harder at owing our own online spaces; I block and mute judiciously to keep crap out of my feed. I don't mind people disagreeing with me as it makes for a lively debate— just don't be a jerk about it.
    I REALLY like the way you phrased that, although personally I'd like to take it a bit more literally. I want more distributed platforms, with more nodes running from peoples' basements and living rooms. Own your online spaces so thoroughly you can pick them up and hold them in your hands. Not everyone can be a sysadmin, sure...but each "community" can have at least one, whether that community is geographic or ideological.

  • On the post: Time Magazine Explains Why Section 230 Is So Vital To Protecting Free Speech

    urza9814 ( profile ), 30 Jan, 2020 @ 01:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Like fixing a papercut through amput

    If you think a more distributed system will resolve the demands for moderation, then you have not been following what happened to 8chan. A lot of the problem is a few loud people who do want the Internet censored, and censored according to their standards. Some them will go hunting for sites and opinions to complain about, because finding and crusading against what they disagree with is what they do
    It won't stop people from whining, but it will solve the actual problems that are caused by it and by removing any legitimacy to those complaints. There are still people going around shouting that the Earth is flat, but that's not affecting public policy because we all know they're full of it. You split up the network, you get an easy go-to response to these complaints: "If you don't like our pod, go find another." Everyone will know that if these people are still finding things to complain about, it's because they CHOOSE to see it. It's not "Well, they hold my social life hostage if I leave..." -- that's a dumb argument now, but it's a powerful one to a lot of people. And the network operators can be more resilient to those complaints. There's no single CEO to get dragged into Congress to testify, no international PR crisis to avoid, no massive group of shareholders to scare off. You might still have massive corporate pods that want to keep everything family-friendly for everyone, and they can do that. You'll also have pods that tell anyone who complains to go F- themselves. If I'm running a pod from the miniature datacenter in my living room, why on earth would I care what what some rando halfway across the country thinks of my moderation policies? And suppose they somehow manage to interfere with those freedom loving pods too. Maybe they go after web hosts or DNS providers. Well, there's more than one of those too, plus you've still gotta shut down each individual pod. They can brigade from one to another, playing a global game of whac-a-mole, and watch as new pods pop up every time they close an existing one.

Next >>