|
Post by tkasper01 on Jun 29, 2019 7:30:45 GMT -5
You did not answer the question.
Are you really trying to say this is not happening and it is all made up?
I did answer the question in other posts as well in that post too. The person who called them Nazis is an ignorant fool. If you are a Google exec and say you do not want another Trump situation like 2015, she could have meant the Russian influence during the elections. Who is forcing people to use Google? I do not use Google. Duck Duck go and Firefox.
If people on the left were being de-platformed and or suspended on Social Media would you still be ok with it? Yes No
Do you think the first question is just a conspiracy theory and not really happening? Yes No
All you need to do is put you answer in bold.
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jun 29, 2019 10:21:59 GMT -5
RIP Luis. 32 was right.
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jun 29, 2019 10:27:07 GMT -5
Who is forcing people to use Google? Part of this question is not at all about if there is an alternative to Google - but rather that the Safe Harbor protections that Google enjoys are wholly predicated on being a neutral platform and not any sort of 'publisher'. Once you start favoring content or skewing results or suppressing information - all of which Google does on a daily basis - you are a publisher and you have waded into much more complex waters. Google search traffic percentages in Europe approach 90% - imagine if 90% of newspapers (and 90% of advertisers that advertise in those papers) in Europe were owned by one company? That's called PRAVDA btw - though I doubt even they had that market-share. Pravda meaning "truth" in Russian - which is extra funny..... Point is, Google can either be a neutral platform and enjoy less responsibility - or be a publisher and handle much greater accountability. They want to have it both ways unsurprisingly. And if they continue to force that issue, they should be broken up.
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jun 29, 2019 10:31:33 GMT -5
You did not answer the question.
Are you really trying to say this is not happening and it is all made up?
Who is forcing people to use Google? Who is forcing you to use the roads? Google controls how information is disseminated on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by 32Green on Jun 29, 2019 11:49:25 GMT -5
Who is forcing people to use Google? Part of this question is not at all about if there is an alternative to Google - but rather that the Safe Harbor protections that Google enjoys are wholly predicated on being a neutral platform and not any sort of 'publisher'. Once you start favoring content or skewing results or suppressing information - all of which Google does on a daily basis - you are a publisher and you have waded into much more complex waters. Google search traffic percentages in Europe approach 90% - imagine if 90% of newspapers (and 90% of advertisers that advertise in those papers) in Europe were owned by one company? That's called PRAVDA btw - though I doubt even they had that market-share. Pravda meaning "truth" in Russian - which is extra funny..... Point is, Google can either be a neutral platform and enjoy less responsibility - or be a publisher and handle much greater accountability. They want to have it both ways unsurprisingly. And if they continue to force that issue, they should be broken up. That's a great fucking post right there.
|
|
|
Post by 32Green on Jun 29, 2019 11:57:25 GMT -5
Louie was 53 when he died, looked 110... and was a shrunken little man. When I first met him, he was built like an MMA fighter. He started documenting his chemo treatments on FB until he hit the last one at about 69 rounds..in that time, in addition to his advocacy for 9/11 responders, he took up wood-burning and showed an almost immaculate talent for it...truly heaven-inspired stuff. I knew then he was touched by a higher power and had found peace within himself..and that something...was speaking through him. Anyhoo, he was a former Marine and a good, regular... dude. RIP, Oooh rah.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2019 14:35:06 GMT -5
I did answer the question in other posts as well in that post too. The person who called them Nazis is an ignorant fool. If you are a Google exec and say you do not want another Trump situation like 2015, she could have meant the Russian influence during the elections. Who is forcing people to use Google? I do not use Google. Duck Duck go and Firefox.
If people on the left were being de-platformed and or suspended on Social Media would you still be ok with it? Yes No
Do you think the first question is just a conspiracy theory and not really happening? Yes No
All you need to do is put you answer in bold.
I could care less what happens to the left or right when it comes to social media. If the people from the left or right felt they are being treated unfairly can find another platform or make their own. But most are more concerned about the income they get from spouting their nonsense. I would not pay to see anyone from the left or the right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2019 15:33:39 GMT -5
Who is forcing people to use Google? Part of this question is not at all about if there is an alternative to Google - but rather that the Safe Harbor protections that Google enjoys are wholly predicated on being a neutral platform and not any sort of 'publisher'. Once you start favoring content or skewing results or suppressing information - all of which Google does on a daily basis - you are a publisher and you have waded into much more complex waters. Google search traffic percentages in Europe approach 90% - imagine if 90% of newspapers (and 90% of advertisers that advertise in those papers) in Europe were owned by one company? That's called PRAVDA btw - though I doubt even they had that market-share. Pravda meaning "truth" in Russian - which is extra funny..... Point is, Google can either be a neutral platform and enjoy less responsibility - or be a publisher and handle much greater accountability. They want to have it both ways unsurprisingly. And if they continue to force that issue, they should be broken up. I do not understand the Safe Harbor protections comment. Google makes money from advertising so where the publisher stuff comes from is confusing to me as well.
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jun 29, 2019 19:06:16 GMT -5
Part of this question is not at all about if there is an alternative to Google - but rather that the Safe Harbor protections that Google enjoys are wholly predicated on being a neutral platform and not any sort of 'publisher'. Once you start favoring content or skewing results or suppressing information - all of which Google does on a daily basis - you are a publisher and you have waded into much more complex waters. Google search traffic percentages in Europe approach 90% - imagine if 90% of newspapers (and 90% of advertisers that advertise in those papers) in Europe were owned by one company? That's called PRAVDA btw - though I doubt even they had that market-share. Pravda meaning "truth" in Russian - which is extra funny..... Point is, Google can either be a neutral platform and enjoy less responsibility - or be a publisher and handle much greater accountability. They want to have it both ways unsurprisingly. And if they continue to force that issue, they should be broken up. I do not understand the Safe Harbor protections comment. Google makes money from advertising so where the publisher stuff comes from is confusing to me as well. A lot of internet law is based on so-called Safe Harbor provisions that were established to spur the growth of the internet. It presupposed that the services - like Google (search) and Youtube etc were simply neutral platforms and therefore not responsible for the content posted or shown on them. They were merely conduits. This law also extends to ISPs btw. But the line between publishing and platform has been blurred tremendously by giant tech platforms. For example, Youtube was able to escape paying artist royalties on streamed material even though they were and remain a de facto music streaming service. It's what allowed Google to avoid regulatory scrutiny for search results despite the fact that they have long been manipulating them, including to promote their own services. It's also what has allowed all the tech services to escape scrutiny in general - all the meanwhile compiling detailed dossiers on whomever used the services and even people who did not - contracting with third-party services to stitch together disparate anonymized data until it was no longer so anonymous. In short, it's what has allowed tech giants to utterly bend the laws. The EU's GDPR was a huge pushback against this - thank goodness - though the reach does not extend into the US yet. Australia recently ended Safe Harbor provisions for Google and Facebook specifically: www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/06/google-facebook-safe-harbor/Watch this craziness: In short, Google and Facebook known more about their users and non-users than the Stasi, KGB and Chinese Ministry of State Security put together - and the evidence is on hand that they make use of it beyond monetization. They are making non-neutral choices of what information to show, or to hide, to whom and in which way. For me the horse has long left the barn and Google should be broken up. Elizabeth Warren is actually right on the nose with this topic: www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/elizabeth-warren-calls-break-facebook-google-amazon-n980911
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2019 19:59:23 GMT -5
I do not understand the Safe Harbor protections comment. Google makes money from advertising so where the publisher stuff comes from is confusing to me as well. A lot of internet law is based on so-called Safe Harbor provisions that were established to spur the growth of the internet. It presupposed that the services - like Google (search) and Youtube etc were simply neutral platforms and therefore not responsible for the content posted or shown on them. They were merely conduits. This law also extends to ISPs btw. But the line between publishing and platform has been blurred tremendously by giant tech platforms. For example, Youtube was able to escape paying artist royalties on streamed material even though they were and remain a de facto music streaming service. It's what allowed Google to avoid regulatory scrutiny for search results despite the fact that they have long been manipulating them, including to promote their own services. It's also what has allowed all the tech services to escape scrutiny in general - all the meanwhile compiling detailed dossiers on whomever used the services and even people who did not - contracting with third-party services to stitch together disparate anonymized data until it was no longer so anonymous. In short, it's what has allowed tech giants to utterly bend the laws. The EU's GDPR was a huge pushback against this - thank goodness - though the reach does not extend into the US yet. Australia recently ended Safe Harbor provisions for Google and Facebook specifically: www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/06/google-facebook-safe-harbor/Watch this craziness: In short, Google and Facebook known more about their users and non-users than the Stasi, KGB and Chinese Ministry of State Security put together - and the evidence is on hand that they make use of it beyond monetization. They are making non-neutral choices of what information to show, or to hide, to whom and in which way. For me the horse has long left the barn and Google should be broken up. Elizabeth Warren is actually right on the nose with this topic: www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/elizabeth-warren-calls-break-facebook-google-amazon-n980911A glaring difference between Google or Facebook compared to foreign spy agencies is we willingly agree to the terms and use their services. Who enforces the safe harbor? I can’t find any statutes or investigations pertaining to this at all.
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jun 29, 2019 20:37:34 GMT -5
The ever tolerant left
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on Jun 29, 2019 20:50:09 GMT -5
It's hilarious (and a bit disturbing) that they weren't prepared for that trap he set. Kudos to him for speaking plain and spelling out their culpability in fanning the flames of discord. Things are going to get really icky over the next 16 months Do you really think the Trump Administration will add trying to break up Google while they are blowing billions on the border, trying to undo North Korea, China and finalize NAFTA 2.0. My comments were more in the vein of just how much more of this blatant, hypocritical, race/gender/politics baiting we are going to see from Big Tech. They are quickly approaching Big Tobacco levels of ethical depravity. Interesting to see the disparate interpretation you had on what I wrote, though.
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on Jun 29, 2019 20:57:12 GMT -5
A lot of internet law is based on so-called Safe Harbor provisions that were established to spur the growth of the internet. It presupposed that the services - like Google (search) and Youtube etc were simply neutral platforms and therefore not responsible for the content posted or shown on them. They were merely conduits. This law also extends to ISPs btw. But the line between publishing and platform has been blurred tremendously by giant tech platforms. For example, Youtube was able to escape paying artist royalties on streamed material even though they were and remain a de facto music streaming service. It's what allowed Google to avoid regulatory scrutiny for search results despite the fact that they have long been manipulating them, including to promote their own services. It's also what has allowed all the tech services to escape scrutiny in general - all the meanwhile compiling detailed dossiers on whomever used the services and even people who did not - contracting with third-party services to stitch together disparate anonymized data until it was no longer so anonymous. In short, it's what has allowed tech giants to utterly bend the laws. The EU's GDPR was a huge pushback against this - thank goodness - though the reach does not extend into the US yet. Australia recently ended Safe Harbor provisions for Google and Facebook specifically: www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/06/google-facebook-safe-harbor/Watch this craziness: In short, Google and Facebook known more about their users and non-users than the Stasi, KGB and Chinese Ministry of State Security put together - and the evidence is on hand that they make use of it beyond monetization. They are making non-neutral choices of what information to show, or to hide, to whom and in which way. For me the horse has long left the barn and Google should be broken up. Elizabeth Warren is actually right on the nose with this topic: www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/elizabeth-warren-calls-break-facebook-google-amazon-n980911A glaring difference between Google or Facebook compared to foreign spy agencies is we willingly agree to the terms and use their services. Who enforces the safe harbor? I can’t find any statutes or investigations pertaining to this at all. And we've been agreeing to EULA for decades, without one of us able to say with a straight face that we've ever read them. The 'regulations' in place protect the companies, same as they do for Pharma when they advertise benefits and side effects of their drugs. Difference here is that Tech has their outs buried in walls of text, when all we want to do is post a dog picture or witty reply on a message board. The way you're going about your argument is akin to victim shaming, btw. Take a step back and you'll see what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jun 29, 2019 21:12:28 GMT -5
A lot of internet law is based on so-called Safe Harbor provisions that were established to spur the growth of the internet. It presupposed that the services - like Google (search) and Youtube etc were simply neutral platforms and therefore not responsible for the content posted or shown on them. They were merely conduits. This law also extends to ISPs btw. But the line between publishing and platform has been blurred tremendously by giant tech platforms. For example, Youtube was able to escape paying artist royalties on streamed material even though they were and remain a de facto music streaming service. It's what allowed Google to avoid regulatory scrutiny for search results despite the fact that they have long been manipulating them, including to promote their own services. It's also what has allowed all the tech services to escape scrutiny in general - all the meanwhile compiling detailed dossiers on whomever used the services and even people who did not - contracting with third-party services to stitch together disparate anonymized data until it was no longer so anonymous. In short, it's what has allowed tech giants to utterly bend the laws. The EU's GDPR was a huge pushback against this - thank goodness - though the reach does not extend into the US yet. Australia recently ended Safe Harbor provisions for Google and Facebook specifically: www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/06/google-facebook-safe-harbor/Watch this craziness: In short, Google and Facebook known more about their users and non-users than the Stasi, KGB and Chinese Ministry of State Security put together - and the evidence is on hand that they make use of it beyond monetization. They are making non-neutral choices of what information to show, or to hide, to whom and in which way. For me the horse has long left the barn and Google should be broken up. Elizabeth Warren is actually right on the nose with this topic: www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/elizabeth-warren-calls-break-facebook-google-amazon-n980911A glaring difference between Google or Facebook compared to foreign spy agencies is we willingly agree to the terms and use their services. Who enforces the safe harbor? I can’t find any statutes or investigations pertaining to this at all. Safe Harbor is two things - one very specifically was an actual law that dealt with how US data companies could interface with EU law; that Safe Harbor was replaced by the GDPR. The second thing it was is a less formal qualitative assessment in existing law that refers to limitation of liability - in this case specifically for internet companies - when they act as agnostic platforms and not publishers. This was very important in the early stages of the internet not because of Google - which did not exist - but because of ISPs who wanted to be shielded from the effects of data that would cross their network (say child porn, copyrighted material, etc). They did not want to be put in the position of policing that data (even they do plenty of data packet sniffing) as the cost would have been exorbitant and would also have put them in precarious legal positions regarding free speech and censorship - which is exactly the problem that is now falling into the lap of the tech companies. Tech giants came along and said - hey, us too! - we're just a platform and deserve the same liability limitations as an ISP. That has largely prevented those same tech giants from falling under more regulatory scrutiny and regulatory frameworks - and it has allowed them to get away with stuff that is a) def not a platform and b) should probably not be legal, as it is (no longer legal) in the case of the EU and Australia. They didn't want safe harbor rights because they intended to censor Americans - they wanted it so they could profit off of user-generated content which largely involved copyrighted and trademark violations. But along the way they also decided that they could actually censor and police data to their benefit and liking - for economic reasons and otherwise. And that's precisely what they've done - all the while trying to claim safe harbor protections as a merely agnostic platform. "Willingly agree" is laughable - and it's why some of the same business practices of Google, Facebook etc which remain legal in the US are no longer legal under the GDPR. Vast swathes of what Google and Facebook do are not, in fact, expressly covered in any agreement that would be considered opt-in consent (which was supposed to be one of the key underpinnings of that specific Safe Harbor act). And you cannot consent or decline to actions or policies you do not know about. And realistically, there is also a limit to consent. It's sort of the same thing that you can not 'waive' your civil rights. cyberlawmonitor.com/2015/10/12/the-end-of-safe-harbor-what-does-it-mean/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2019 21:18:10 GMT -5
A glaring difference between Google or Facebook compared to foreign spy agencies is we willingly agree to the terms and use their services. Who enforces the safe harbor? I can’t find any statutes or investigations pertaining to this at all. And we've been agreeing to EULA for decades, without one of us able to say with a straight face that we've ever read them. The 'regulations' in place protect the companies, same as they do for Pharma when they advertise benefits and side effects of their drugs. Difference here is that Tech has their outs buried in walls of text, when all we want to do is post a dog picture or witty reply on a message board. The way you're going about your argument is akin to victim shaming, btw. Take a step back and you'll see what I mean. These victims have profited from these services, they are not simply posting pics. This is a business venture for them and I do not care what side of the political aisle they represent.
|
|