Slashdot Mirror
What Is Real On YouTube?
An anonymous reader writes, "The popularity of user-generated video sites like YouTube has given rise to deceptive videos created for self-promotion, advertising, or even smearing rival brands. This latter format, dubbed the 'smear video,' depicts a rival brand's product exhibiting fictitious faults. One example is the 21-second YouTube video entitled 'Samsung handset, easy to break at one try!', which shows a smiling woman easily snapping the new Samsung Ultra Edition mobile phone in half. Samsung says the phone was rigged to snap and the video has now been removed from the site. The article also accuses those who created the now infamous Lonelygirl15 YouTube videos of 'deception for profit. Misrepresenting commercials as independent user-generated content, actors as members of the public, and fiction as fact.' Will user-generated video sites increasingly confront visitors with the disturbing possibility that the video they're watching is not a home video at all, but a sophisticated ad campaign?"
Slashdot users are pretty adept at spotting slashvertisements and astrotrufing (better than the slashdot editors, it would seem. Did anyone think "lonelygirl15" was real?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
You mean everything on the web isn't real? FUCK!
i'm kinda unclear on how the whole lonelygirl project generated much/any profit.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you! LonleyGirl isn't real?! People would actually post videos that are not what they appear to be?!
This comes as a great revelation to us all!
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I don't see how a persons opinion of a phone, expressed by video, is any different then simply writing "this phone sucks". The video should not only have stayed up, but its in the public best interest to leave it so.
This has been a main criticism of the internet since the first newsgroups began appearing years ago. You could always write a blog or review of something posing as anyone pretending to know anything. YouTube is no different, save the fact that manipulation and misrepresentation of facts can be created and shared easily in a video format. I fail to see how this is a new (read: interesting) question.
I m bored with youtube.com and every freakin story being about it.
The tubes.
The internet is full of them and they can never take that away from us. We'll always have Paris and the tubes.
What's Real On Slashdot?
will be telling us about Serenity II.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
It's obvious from the skillful editing (watch how the timing of the cuts seem like a documentary or a "reality" show and not like some kid on a webcam) that at the very least lonelygirl "knew what she was doing" and was creating a narrative rather than just randomly talking about her life. That this narrative was created by professionals should come as no surprise.
Maybe THIS story was posted by YouTube's competitors! NOW WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?
Well It's A Good Thing(tm) that we have TV to tell us what's right and wrong instead of misguiding internet sites...
;-)
Joke aside, the internet is a media like TV and newspapers and should be treated equally: With sceptism.
The only thing that keeps us away from being puppets of the media is our ability to judge and do a reality check. If you see something "stunning" or amazing - be sure that the first thing you do is disregard it for a moment and don't start telling it to others, since that's when speculation and lies become "the uofficial truth".
But then again.. if we were all able to tell when the media was lying... I guess there wouldn't be tabloids
All of the these "social networking" sites suffer the same affliction. They are all just another source of ad revenue for marketers and the people running the sites.
I think it was Bruce Sterling, if anyone recognizes it, let me know.
They were talking about the concept of Temporary Autonomous Zones, like the ones in the carribean that pirates frequented - lawless places which somehow managed to govern themselves, and because the interview was in Wired around 1999 or so, the interviewer likened it to afterhours raves and waxed poetic about how awesome it'd be and how we'd be free of corporate etc etc. So the interviewee said "You want to see a TAZ in action, you go look at a toxic-waste dumping 'rave' - where a corporation hires some dubious character to take barrels of waste out into the TAZ that is the open ocean and just throw it over the side. That's the destiny of a TAZ, not some hippy vision of freedom and egalitarianism." Of course, I'm butchering the quote, but gimme a break, I read it like 7 years ago.
Anyhow, the point of this exasperatingly long-winded anecdote is that things like youtube, which promise freedom and creativity for all will always end up used for evil for the same reason as the TAZ - because freedom is nice and everything, but money trumps all. And the money will drive a wedge of mistrust between us all.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
"...actors as members of the public, and fiction as fact."
It sounds like big media don't want amateurs moving in on their territory.
The video I just uploaded titled "how to break a kryptonite lock" is for informational purposes only and is not intended to affect the reputation of the Kryptonite lock company.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Real or not, lonelygirl15's whiny voice made me want to vomit so hard after 15 seconds I "like totally" didn't visit youtube for an entire week.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
The internet would never lie to me. Did you know that the population of elephants in Africa has tripled in the last six months?
You mean these pills won't make my P3n15 larger?
Because I heard there would be on the internets
This Thread is Worthless without links to said videos.
There now it has been said!
Without the dancing little characters holding the signs.
An article submitted by an "anonymous" user purporting to be about the authenticity of web content and art vs advertisement, but instead linking back to a site that makes most of its money from advertisements, product reviews, and page views....
I don't know about you, but I'm a little ironied out...
How many morons in the world actually accept everything they see or read (especially on the internet) as fact?
I think the real story here is that there are a bunch of idiots in the world who are ignorant of humor. Case in point: Borat vs. Kazakhstan. --> There's way too much of this in every government and most major media outlets (see: u.s. gov./media vs. video games)
Lighten up and enjoy life while you can.
Who cares if the video of snapping a Samsung phone in half is real or not? Even if a rival company paid to have that spot made and distributed, it HAD to come from somewhere. Samsung says it was rigged, but they didn't just invent the fact the phone is cheap. It was probably based on complaints and testing. If it was completely made up, it wouldn't rise in popularity. It's like stereotypes - you might not like them, but there's SOME basis in fact. Or else it would never catch on.
What if someone whose Samsung phone broke made that video versus a rival company making it. Would it matter? I don't think so. Because again, SOMEONE had to have problems with that phone breaking. Whether a rival company made and paid for it or the pissed off consumer did it for free, I don't think it matters...
People get mad about not knowing when they're being advertised to. They shouldn't. Everyone has agendas. Do your research and listen to more than one source.
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
and most countries do it to their citizens in order to achieve some end.
Now, companies and people can do it to each other!
Seriously though, take a step back for a moment and ask yourself a couple of questions:
1. Why should I trust anything on the site in question? They don't say they are purveyors of trustworthy data. I think the problem is that "trustworthy videos" may not be an expectation they want to meet.
2. What does anyone gain by visiting the site in question?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
So uh, when did actors stop being members of the public?
Can I stop being a member of the public?
Most of the people in the Slashdot community have been "online" for decades now. We have watched the Internet become something so big that a signal entity can't wield enough power to control it any longer. Yet, like all modern entertainment and communication formats, there is a certain amount of deception that takes place. For years people have made the on-going joke that the "girl" with the screen name of "supersexysweet16" is actually some fat guy in his underwear either screwing around or preying on juveniles. Now, we have news organizations like Dateline activly trapping people with deceptive tactics that the police have been using to nab predators for a while.
Asking the question "Will user-generated video sites increasingly confront visitors with the disturbing possibility that the video they're watching is not a home video at all, but a sophisticated ad campaign?" at this point in the history of the Internet is just silly and evidence that the "Anonymous Reader" is woefully out of touch with reality and needs to quit being so naive. Deception is everywhere. Even the bum on the street begging for your change may not even be a REAL bum. There are so many deceptive acts taking place out there and if YouTube letting some unscrupulous ad agency post an ad to generate revenue is the biggest worry I have then I'd say I'm doing pretty good.
In other words, big deal. I'm not going to YouTube to determine what's real and what's not or who's lying to me about what. It's so inconsequential that I don't even care who's going to get sent up the river for such a travesty. I'm going to YouTube to be entertained and even commercials are entertaining at times. Just watch the commercials on the SuperBowl for evidence of that. If someone on YouTube wants to lie to me about it then fine, it's not going to impact my life adversely because I don't believe everything I read, see or hear. Especially if there is only one instance of bad press like the Samsung phone when there are droves of people out there with opinions that are the polar opposite. It's on me if I am so gullible to not see through something as silly as that Samsung video that was posted. It's even worse if I base a consumer decision on such a video and limit my research to just that video. Shame on me for being such a stooge if that were true.
--- Greenpeace Apologizes for Apple Stink
Mainstream TV and newspapers are hardly immune to this effect.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
You mean now I have to be skeptical of things I see online? What next? You gonna tell me the Tooth Fairy isn't real?
It's the tubes. You see, things have to chopped into little pieces, appropriately called "bits" to be sent through the tubes without clogging them. Real girls can not survive being chopped into bits! So no, nothing you see on the internet is real. Why just yesterday I was hungry and told one of my aides to send me a ham sandwich through the internets. They asked me how to go about that and I told them to scan it in and send it by email. When it got here, I printed it out, and let me tell you, it tasted nothing like a ham sandwich!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Suprise! Not everything online is really what you think it is! outta my way, I need to preorder that new Phantom console!!
Are you suggesting that we not uncritically believe everything we see on the Internet? I'm shocked, shocked at your cynicism. Next you'll be telling me that bears don't know Kung-Fu.
Syncerus
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
I don't think that anyone will really care (much) if the content they're viewing on youtube or Google video or whatever else is out there is an advertisement or not - as long as it is entertaining. That's the whole point behind advertising, trying to keep your target audience entertained long enough to maybe get an ad in edgewise. Youtube is chock full of amusing little adverts that I watch to entertain myself. Heck, even if its not blatant advertising or bashing, as long as I get a chuckle or a "That was awesome!" from it, then the point is made. If the advertising people are doing their homework and learning to take advantage of a new medium, then kudos to them, as long as it stays entertaining.
So please, ad people, continue bringing us your Wazzaaaaaa's and your Geico Gekkos and your dancing transforming cars, and whatever else you can think of, blatant or not. Make me laugh. Make me yell. Make me think about buying your products, or of discontinuing service with your competitors. I will continue to temper my decisions with research and past experiences as my guides, but if you have a truely superior product or service to offer, then I will appreciate a truely superior ad campaign to tell me of it.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
Easy, just misrepresent the public, just like the actors did.
Me hearty.
All I care about is when the next episode of lonelygirl15 is released and is she going to start dating daniel! What would her religious parents think? What is this religious dance she's going to do that requires iron pills? This is what's really important. feed me Seymour!
http://www.havenofbliss.com/
That's pretty funny coming from someone posting to slashdot. What makes you think the people on youtube and myspace spend any more time there than you do here? They need to "get a life" and go outdoors more, but you don't?
Developers: We can use your help.
The people with money and power (either directly, or government apointed 'civil servants' who have defacto ownership - essentially state capitalists) are already living in a total autonomy zone. The people with money and power do what they like, when they like, and don't have to worry about any law because it doesn't apply to them.
Total Autonomous Zones are about giving the common people the same freedom that the rich and powerful already enjoy. Dumping in the oceans you say? Already happens nowadays, without any restrictions, so long as you are rich and powerful enough, or you are a government. And big corporations, or government officials, already engage in FUD campaigns both on and off line, without any restrictions.
All laws and regulations are laws and regulations designed to restrict the poor, or those who are less politically powerful (in a political economy, effectively the same as the poor).
The same thing happens everywhere, in everything we do, see, and hear. We're just used to it when it comes in other forms besides novel web fads.
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Text is purely integer.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
nothing is real except our disingenuousness.
Most of the content on YouTube is either pirated, marketing material, or total crap.
Which is a real problem. YouTube is starting to have the problems Napster did, with lawsuits from content owners cropping up every few days. Legitimate ones, too. Putting someone else's music on someone else's video and redistributing it is not original work. Not even close.
YouTube is starting to deal with this. "Removed for terms of service violation" messages are showing up more frequently. But that cuts into their free content supply.
So what's going up now? Marketing material. All ads, all the time. Music videos this week, with the Warner deal.
Already, more than half the YouTube screen space is third-party ads anyway. And YouTube is signed up with everybody. Watch a YouTube page load stall while "yieldmanager.com", "atmdt.com", "doubleclick.com", "insightexpressai.com", "euroclick.com" and "tacoda.net" ("an end-to-end marketing application used for analyzing customer interactions and segmenting and monetizing audience members") all are read. For one page.
YouTube is not the next Google. YouTube is the next MP3.com.
The disturbing possibility that video you're watching isn't amateur after all? So what? If it's grinding some rhetorical axe, then your critical thinking skills should already be kicking in. If it's simply entertaining, who cares?
You want disturbing? I'll tell you what's disturbing. Finding out, on the same day, that the Blair Witch and Santa Claus aren't real. At least, once you've digested that bit of shock, you're better able to deal with the fact that some people will use anonymous, free venues to blow a little smoke around, for both artistic- and agenda-driven reasons. Guess what: it's completely freakin' free! Relax, already!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This isn't really all that new. I think things like Lonelygirl (and going back to the Blair Witch Project (marketing disguised as authentic recorded experiences)) are making people more cynical about what they see in general. Every time I see something that looks "authentic" on YouTube (or anywhere else for that matter), I'm inclined to doubt its true source. Maybe it's better that, by finding out there's so much "fake" information out there, we don't just blindly believe everything we see. But in a way, it's also a sad commentary on what mass media and the marketing engine have done to the dissemination of true information for worthwhile purposes. I guess as long as there's a buck to be made.....
Will naked, all-women videos turn out to be deluded expressions of a sex-starved man's fantasy life, and not have anything to do with changing homosexual or feminist attitudes? Tell me it's not true!
While I can sympathize with people who feel tricked by seeing items posted on Youtube in a deceptive manner, it comes with no assertions that it is true. It's vast and unsupervised, and viewers need to be aware of that. Just adding a pretense that something is "authorized" or meets some kind of regulation will probably do more to lower people's guard than to actually improve the honesty of those who post.
> Total Autonomous Zones are about giving the common people the same freedom that the rich and powerful already enjoy
Right, but the guy's point was that these zones would always be co-opted, and that while living in a society of law is kind of a pain in the ass at times, it's the citizens only protection against larger, more powerful entities such as corporations, and that the desire for autonomous zones is a nice idea but in practice amounts to suicide.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
yes. and get to see a rocket impact killing everyone around you. gee. no thanks.
Dang, forgot to respond to this:
> All laws and regulations are laws and regulations designed to restrict the poor, or those who are less politically powerful
Well now, that's patently false. I'll just point you at car safety and tobacco/liquor advertising laws and make my exit.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
In W. Gibson's latest novel "Pattern Recognition", there are a series of videos/short films posted anonymously on the internet. Noone knows who is posting them and why; Marketing companies all hunger for a chance to get some of the hype surrounding the posted short videos. I won't ruin the ending for you, but it is a story of marketing types and anonymous artistic video postings.
This is very applicable to what is happening on YouTube now; self-made work are being fostered by these types of user generated content sites. The problem is the viewer has non idea if those self made works are sponsored by companies, or if they are just 'solo artist in a room somewhere' type of works.
Who says we can't enjoy ads? I don't view You Tube as a "home video only" site as much as a "if this video is interesting I'll watch it" site. Personally, I don't care who created the content, if it's good, I'll consume it.
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
Samsung had a right to have the video removed because it libeled/slandered/whatever their product. If it were an honest critique and they had it removed then there would be a problem.
Work Safe Porn
Are they gonna tell me next that http://www.nuklearpower.com/ isn't really about Light Warriors trying to save the world?
Programmer: an ingenious device that converts caffeine into code.
Isn't this more or less the same as the "news reports" on television which are actually paid for advertisements? I mean, sure they have more license to mislead since there isn't a broadcasting company vetting the commercials for legal implications, but it's still deceptive multimedia.
Someone's post related this to piracy on the seas, or dumping toxis sludge when noone was around to spot them, but youTube is bound to be a bit different - this sludge isn't sludge until someone views it, at which point it can be demoted as disinformation. At that point, this slashdot posting would be as significant as a posting about a troll writing a misleading comment.
So give it 6 months and this story will only have historic significance.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
As more and more of this crap makes its way onto YourTube, fewer people will actually use it and the site will fail and everyone will point and say another Web 2.0 failure. Intrusive advertising is great at killing mediums and peopel try to develop ways of screening it ou -blocking ads one of the bigest reasons to get a DVR, and how many of you use Adblock. If YourTube can't screen out "fake" videos those users will become cynical and stop using it.
What a shame to not have more videos of idiots lighting themselves on fire in creative new ways. The site is mostly "Stupidest Home Videos on the Net!" and the sooner it dies the better.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Caveat Emptor
Let's be clear, here. Although the creators of lonelygirl wound up being represented by CAA, a professional talent agency, they are nevertheless a bunch of young amateurs. The videos don't promote any product (except for purple monkey hand puppets, maybe), and the only sort of cross-marketing involved is, perhaps, the use of CAA-represented indie bands for background music. All in all the music is pretty unobtrusive and tasteful, and is far from the main point of the videos.
Lonelygirl is, at its heart, a series about an extremely compelling character, and her video diary makes people feel an intimate connection with her. I have to say, the series was even more enjoyable when one could believe that Bree was a real girl, seriptitiously posting her thoughts, colored by her signature humor and innocence, from her bedroom. Now that she's been "outed" as an actress, the "show" is a little more conventional, but when you're willing to suspend your disbelief, it's still wonderfully fun to watch.
In short, Lonelygirl is damn good television, except that it's not on television.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
This has been a main criticism of the internet since the first newsgroups began appearing years ago.
It's not a new issue, it only looks new because there used to be only three broadcasters who could misbehave. Remember the exploding gas tank fiasco?
They were busted but only because GM had the manpower and resources to sue them.
The internet itself has proved itself a more reliable source of information. The more sources of information you have the better off you are. Lies can only live when people who know the truth are silenced.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is just an example of the Tragedy of the Commons.
everything you read on the internet is false.
except that.
and that.
and that.
and that. and that. and that. and that. and that. and that. and that. and that. and that. and that. not that last one, though, that's a total lie.
The part that says, "Buffering..."
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
However, most attempts to create exceptions on any kind of large scale have (so far) been corrupted to the point where they cease to be freedoms and enslave those who embrace them. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that freedom of the individual enslaves the collective, and freedom of the collective enslaves the group, that you cannot be simultaneously a free individual AND a member of a free society. There are also good reasons - totally independently of money - for believing that both extremes are unstable. As soon as one segment becomes more free than another, or more influential than another, there will be a natural drift of power away from those with less and towards those with more. Eventually, neither the individuals nor the collective will be free.
You will never, ever see an introverted, non-judgemental, empathic, intellectually exploratory, emotionally self-sufficient President of America. Geeks make up about 10% of the population, and socially-conscious geeks probably make about 2-3%. That 3% probably understands the dynamics of the world better than the other 97%, but their total influence is a big, fat zero. It's not even remotely close to even their proportion in society. This is in part because they're far too busy doing things they consider important, but it still means that their "freedoms" are dictated by some other group, which makes it more a permission than a freedom.
Having said that, nobody has yet developed a workable alternative, including the intellectually exploratory and socially conscious, suggesting that freedom will remain a mere delusion for a long time yet. In the example in the parent post, power will naturally drift into the hands of those who would dump toxic waste (it's cheap) or despoil a place to gain an advantage (political or economic expediency). It's mostly about money, just not entirely about money. It's also about what makes a person good at what they do, and why that eliminates a large fraction of the populace from ever having any meaningful say.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I think it nicely points up the difference between freedom, which protects the rights of all, and license, which protects the rights of none. This, against the "free" acts of others. Too often license, as in a TAZ, is mistaken for freedom. This was (and still is) very much the case in post Soviet space, where the concept of freedom is poorly understood. Or when teens get into their first apartment or dorm room. Freedom is like a kite. It needs a length of string to hold it down so it can fly.
Youtube, Wikipedia, you name it, give license not freedom. To be centers of free information they will need have to add some controls to protect the community from the rude, the self-interested and the mean. It's a hard string measure out right. Wikipedia has been wrestling with this and Youtube will have to also or let the jungle choke it out of existence.
But it can be done. I have been impressed with the community moderation system on Slashdot, which achieves this to some extent. It strikes a good balance... Well, mostly.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Right, but the other guy's point is that if these zones don't exist, the rich, powerful and EVIL will still do the bad stuff.
And living in a society of law is great until the rich and powerful (and current Presidential Administrations, for example) do not follow the laws that they force and enforce on the poor and less powerful. For example we citizens of the US follow the laws in the Constitution, while our President disregards more than half of them, and has me scared out of my gourd that I might get picked up and secretly held without charges (under the "PATRIOT" Act, no less) simply for speaking my mind on my disappointment in how our Country, and our federal government in particular, has been behaving the last 6 years.
I honestly believe that a "Total Lawless Zone" is better than what we currently have (though 6 years ago, I probably would have agreed with you).
blog
Sometimes people are too bent on idealism in society. Everyone knows with freedom comes disagreements and people crying foul and at times dregs of society. Too many rules and you have a totalitarian censorship type setting.
Its up to the creators what they want to have. Or in this case youtubers.
You can see the differences in say AOL's message boards and Craigslist's rant and rave section.
> I honestly believe that a "Total Lawless Zone" is better than what we currently have (though 6 years ago, I probably would have agreed with you).
... ugh.
You will not find me entirely unsympathetic to this view, but it's still hyperbole to me. I'd certainly agree that our government is pretty broken right now, but I can't even start to imagine what would happen if all the gloves came off. Child labor, debtors prison, indentured servitude
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
You can't believe everything you read/see/hear on the Internet?
Holy shit, this really is breaking news; I mean, it's not like this has been common sense since the Internet was invented or anything.
I seriously fail to see how this is news. Entire political campaigns are built on smear advertisements (anyone remember the last election?), and the Internet doesn't even have to comply with any type of law that keeps those smear ads from being worse than they are now; is it any wonder these videos are being put online?
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
I saw thru the LonleyGirl CG effects the whole time and nobody would believe me! ;-)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Car safety laws are designed to maintain the oligarchy of large automotive companies... They were pushed for by the big auto companies in order to make automobile development as capital intensive as possible, thereby locking out smaller competition. Prior to car safety regulation, people were not any more likely to die in an auto accident than they are now, and there were something close to 100 American auto companies. After the consolidation of the big 3, the only "new" auto companies to compete on the U.S. market have been large foriegn companies (who are essentially one of the big established players in their own country). Even now, the U.S. keeps a lot of European small cars out of the U.S. market by insane safety regulations (which is why you can't buy a tiny little fuel efficient peugot or citron something similiar in the U.S.)
In the case of Tobacco and Liquor advertising laws, they also help the established players. New companies, smaller companies, need advertisment to compete with larger companies (which are already ubiquitous, so they don't need advertising). Advertising laws are a barrier to market for small companies, where as the large companies can afford to sponser a formula 1 racing team and have their logo all on TV (essentially skirting the law).
If you look at ANY regulation that is passed, with the exception of regulation that is essentially already a social moor (such as laws against murder, rape, etc.), they are designed for the benfit of powerful economic interests.
Wait what, a different reason for seatbelts other than the old standby of Big Medicine calling for them to save the lives of otherwise totally mangled people that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to put [almost] back together again, only to be permanently bedridden, ventilated, tube fed, and require 24/7 supervision by trained staff, "but thank the Lord your son is alive!"?
Oh come on.
... well, I don't know, but I'm sure you have a tinfoil hat answer for that one too.
> Prior to car safety regulation, people were not any more likely to die in an auto accident than they are now
Seat belts don't save lives, eh? Ralph Nader was just a tool of the auto industry? Big Tobacco engineered the ban on cigarette advertising on TV as a clever ruse to lock out the smaller producers, who through some nebulous market forces are unable to sponsor racing teams? Standard Oil was broken up because it
I'll agree that in general, laws are written by the rich for the rich, but there are also some that are written for the little guy by good legislators. If that wasn't the case, there'd be no such thing as a class action suit, no such thing as OSHA, no anti-trust laws (ok, well there practically aren't any more, but you know what I mean), etc.
Taking a position that ALL laws favor the rich with NO EXCEPTIONS is simply ridiculous.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Yeah, but we already have all that. Its just not right here, where our laws matter.
;), but playing to the center doesn't seem to work for anyone lately.
Those shoes you're wearing (ok... maybe not yours, but surely these Nike's...) were probably sewn together with the soft touch only a child can give. Granted those children are being exploited elsewhere in the world, outside of our laws, but companies within our borders are still using that labor to keep their costs low.
I admit that some of what I say is exaggerated, perhaps even unfounded
blog
Honestly, though, you can't blame them.. I mean, have you seen how small the new iPods are? No way any adult fingers were assembling those tiny parts! Not for no 2 cents a day that's for sure!
So you are saying that an Autonomous Zone, such as YouTube, is more dominated by powerful entities such as corporations, than say network television? Are you trying to tell me that Autonomous zones such as Burning Man are more dominated by corporations than highly regulated zones such as New York's Times Square? Sorry, I think you are mistaken.
Corporations have no guns, no armies, no police. In and of themselves, corporations are not very intimidating. Corporations exercise their control by getting regulation passed that furthers their own economic interests... and then rely on the state to enforce those regulations. Regulations don't hold corporations in check, they are the tools by which corporations hold the common people in check (or smaller, less dominate corporations).
The powerful people may be able to co-opt YouTube and such, to a certain extent... but far less than they would a highly centralized, highly regulated medium. There is no single point of control, no czar, no head to take over. Any attempt to take over the medium would require brute force use of resources to out produce the massive amounts of user created content, which is far more expensive and less powerful than just bribing an elected official.
Oh shit! Don't engage the Libertarians, it will just enrage them. I think you are supposed to wave your arms around and look big...or maybe its play dead. I forget which.
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
> Yeah, but we already have all that. Its just not right here, where our laws matter.
This isn't really an argument for less laws, it's an argument for more.
> playing to the center doesn't seem to work for anyone lately.
Sad but true.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
I'm pretty sure a google search will show enough examples of "prior art" =)
Are you trying to tell me that Autonomous zones such as Burning Man
;)
Are you telling me that the Nevada State Police have jurisdiction over Autonomous Zones?
Burning Man rocks, and its probably as free a place as you can find within this Country's border, but ask the 1000 or so people who got busted for possession how Autonomous they felt. That's about 2.5% of the total Black Rock City population this year. That'd be like if 7.5 million Americans got busted THIS WEEK. Or 150 million worldwide.
the synopsis forgot to list a very common fake, the faked video clip of a "shocking event".
for example an airbag CANNOT deploy of a stationary car has its front bumper tapped by a cane. It cannot happen, mainly for safety reasons for the driver. two or more sensors need to trigger and the front two CANNOT be triggerred in any manner shown in the faked video of a granny at a crosswalk rapping a rich mans sports car impatiently revving its engine
there are countless other faked videos on youtube
they annoy people with education
youtube is also about 50% more fuzzy than the average google video
but youtube does not censor and delete as often.
example : countless FEMALE amputee videos on youtube, but almost none, only male, on google, as google deletes female amputee clips. google also tends to delete a lot of teen clips uploaded by highschoolers too, but youtube does not.
They're being way too anal. Who cares if it is commercial or a home video? Not me, I just want to be entertained. Stop being a stick-in-the-mud and post away.
Lonelygirl15 should not be lumped in there like it's just another mean trick. It was deceptive, but not in a bad way. The whole thing was brilliant IMO. You may find her annoying, but the whole story arc is great.
And the most amazing part is including the occult stuff, leading people to speculate it may be leading up to some Halloween thing: misleading the viewer into thinking her parents are fundamentalist Christian, then the mysterious ritual, then the barely noticeable shrine to Aleister Crowley in her room, the secret numbers? I don't know what the payoff is for the company behind it, but this is GREAT stuff. Read more about it here if you haven't been following it.
And the money will drive a wedge of mistrust between us all.
s/money/love of money/
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
Without the all-powerful profit motive we would all be vacant-eyed lumps of nothing being eaten alive by our own shoelaces!!
Ha! That's what you think. I wear loafers. In your face, shoelace!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Most of the videos entered are lame as hell, but some are VERY inspired.
One girl, "Deanna", is some kind of a weepy nightmare - one of those "really pretty, but a TOTAL PSYCHO" types. so, you think "these are videos of a very disturbed woman". But then, some digging around on the names submitted reveals that actually it's an act - excerpts from some bizarro indie film about video dating. And her name isn't Deanna, but a talented young actress named Morgan Mead.
Now, you might think: OK - so what? But she's not the only one - another fellow named "Denton Rose" is a skinny elvis impersonator and quite daft. He is also in the running for the top prize. What is real? What isn't? DOES IT FUCKING MATTER? Ummmm. No.
I believe it was David Bowie who said something to the effect of: "Everything in performance is a pose. Even sincerity." This is an important point that the sheeple of the world fail to understand. Example: people who play "bad guys" in soap operas are regularly assaulted in public. "HOW COULD YOU DO THAT TO NANCY???" "Why don't you just settle down with Monica - she's such a nice girl!" etc.
The problem is, PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS. Places like YouTube are repositories - they have no business model. Places like gofish.com DO have a business model, but it is one based in a culture and humour of irony: sincerity comes at the price of a wink and a nudge nudge... That's why I find gofish more interesting as a phenomenon, even though they have fewer videos than youTube.
HH
Hey! Put that down! You'll poke your eye out!
The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
There will always be "good legislators" who propose laws that benefit the little guy. But the only time they have an effect is when they allowed to by the guys with the real power. The powerful can pick and choose from the bills that the "good legislators" propose and permit only the ones that benefit them to make it through congress and become actual law.
Thus the situation you have described - some do-good laws that don't really harm the powerful are passed and often co-opted by the powerful, but the ones that might make a substantial difference in the power structure don't make it out of comittee with any hope of passage.
n/t
So you're with the other guy, the one who insists that Big Tobacco really doesn't at all mind not being able to advertise on TV and plastering their products with "WARNING: THIS PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU"? The one who contends that the fight the auto companies put up against mandatory seat belts was somehow a ruse and they really wanted them all the time so that they could somehow use this to drive out smaller car companies?
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
... really talk like this.
I've found that my posts don't format quite right w/o a sig.
Protective legislation is allowed through, not pushed up through grassroots, so while I'm inclined to think it's more the rule than not, it still doesn't ring true that all legislation favors the wealthy and powerful.
On the other hand, almost all laws favor the status quo, by intention. That's a reality IMO. It just so happens the status quo includes keeping the wealthy and influential, that way.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
This is just bullshit. Any research into the statistics will indicate otherwise. Since 1960, the fatality rate per mile traveled has dropped 3.42x. Since 1970, it has dropped 3.2x.
Spread your Libertarian bullshit elsewhere. The facts support the conclusion that safety standards have made vehicles significantly safer.
The reason you can't buy a tiny vehicle in the US (other than, for example, the Honda Insight) is that historically tiny vehicles have performed poorly in the market. Our safety regulations are neither "insane" nor are they particularly stringent - EuroNCAP, for example, is a considerably harder test than the NHTSA test (and more comparable to the IIHS tests).
Spoken like a true Libertarian. "If the government does it, it must be evil". Of course, big, powerful interests would never try to gain power through corporate means. Who needs anti-trust laws? Environmental regulations? It is foolish to trust that the government has our best interests in mind, but it is every bit as foolish to assume that corporations will act ethically.
That's why we need things like car safety regulations. This isn't rocket science: we have real-world crash test data indicating that cars are safer. And we have the statistics to indicate that those safer cars are saving lives. The facts support a simple conclusion: vehicle safety standards save lives.
The brouhaha around her reminds me of a proof-of-concept virus for a vulnerability. Except that it'll be a lot harder to patch.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Been a Wired subscriber since 94. Pretty sure it's Sterling. Sounds like him. But I don't remember the piece, although it had a familiar ring. Wish I could help more. I keep back issues, but some are in storage. And when I was in Russia delivery was spotty so I missed a few. Did you see that Wired News and Wired mag have remerged. Should be cool. Cheers. B
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
I went outside once, played a little hacksack in the golden gate park.
Somebody taped me, and put it on YouTube.
In anycase, here is proof I went outside once.
This sounds an awful lot like the rending of shirts and tearing of hair that once accompanied any percieved commercial material on usenet when the net was still a closed research and education toy.
When Jack Rickard's army of sysops ripped up the Internet Acceptable Use Policy and opened the net to the rest of the world, they also brought an end to the non-commercial purity of the net. The idea that there should be any public forum on the net that magically retains that old-fashioned purity is somewhat naive.
To repeat oft-given advice: If you don't like it—fork it! Build your own and censor the ads. Maybe you'll find a following.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
...if I post a video stating that Diebold voting machines can not be opened with simple hotel minibar keys?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
I'll tell you what's real: Steve Sutton is real!!!
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
the Director of Homeland Sec did not pretend, he told the 14 year old who he was and how to contact him @ work.
see why pretending is good?
What is "Real"? How do you define "real"? :) And so on, and so forth :)
If real is what you can see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
Now click on that Youtube play button, and I'll show you how deep their budget hole goes...
Hyperom.com
Well, now that you've remembered . . . the post you're quoting was using hyperbole, so you can't disprove it by citing one example where the statement is false.
I've cited a lot more than one example and I could rattle off many more if I thought he'd wouldn't be able to invent an immensely improbably explanation for it.
And incidentally, citing examples where the statement is false is exactly how you disprove things.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Yeah, you can find all kinds of stupid stuff on YouTube.
But I have found some cool stuff too. If you want to see that Rush or Berlin video from long ago Youtube has it. Unfortunetly, youtube's search capabilities sucks. I was looking for some specific video's and they didn't come up in the search engine until I typed in Geddy Lee or Terri Nunn. I was looking for two videos by the rock group Giant but couldn't find them unless I typed in the lead singer's name Dann Huff.
So, there is some stuff on there worth watching once you get past all the crap...I think there sight needs better usability.
Is the web frontier the new wild west?
First come people searching for gold, then the cities, the the army sends specials crews, then finally a regular police force.
We have the website searching for gold. We have the beginning of cities, and the marshals come rarely.
Hmm...
Have you read my journal today?
a valid answer... seriously if youtube, myspace ...ummm and the rest of the "social networking" sites all fell off the face of the earth i could hardly care less.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
Are you saying video may depict things that aren't true? Then all those movies, TV shows, and "news" programs are made up? By people with some sort of ulterior motive? Perhaps profit?
This is a sad, sad day.
Next you'll say that Championship Wrestling is fake...
The bible is full of manipulation and misrepresentation of facts.
And guess what? Most people believe in that thing!
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
It has to be noted that commericals are fundamentally fake!... Its the very basis that they stem from!... The commercial scheme is to try and seemingly 'appear' as a third party noting the supreme benefits of a product from a consumered perspective. An actor who is supposed to generically represent an ideal version of joe six pack, aka an idealized 'one of us'. The sheered reality is the fact that a company is paying for a slick campaign to make themselves look great... ..Seriously, I know how so far obvious this seems, but the real end result is consumers enamored by a wow effect that hit the store shelves. (!?)
The more I see postings giving way to logic like this, the less faith I inturn reserve for the human race! :|
Ok.. so we all know that commercials are already sophisticated, deviant, and fake... right?
It's easy to diss a competitor's product, and get called on it, but it's much better to "promote" it in a way that does not make it look good.
"Samsung: We accept only the best, which is why we don't sell to niggers!" etc.
I want to hire lonelygirl15 to quite literally beat a dead horse.
They lie, are repulsive, in your face and utterly irrating and useless, Don't believe the media, or news outlet especially what is on the tv. oh yeah..
I guess the kook liberal 9/11 conspiracy movies are getting harder and harder to pass off...
All the videos about "stolen election" and blah blah blah... the slashdot meme has always been implicitly "THIS IS FREEDOM, YOU JUST DONT LIKE THE TRUTH"...
Now the kooks are being exposed, and slashdot is finding itself standing with kooks. Time for another 180...
What do you mean "Will"?
Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
lonelygirl15... am I the only person on /. who has never heard of lonelygirl15 or seen any videos of her? Then again I don't spend all day on YouLube.com.
I was actually waiting for the "talk like a normal human being day".
Just like television. Why would anyone have the expectation that any of these videos are real, unless they are from a reputable news source? Have we learned nothing from the famous "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast? If anyone "Falls" for believing a video is real, it's likely there own fault.
is what is real? It used to be that some paintings were considered real if they were rendered in a fool the eye sort of way so that they made the physical surface of the canvas appear to be a semi-transparent window in the wall, until some smart fellas in the 1900s decided that the canvas itself is "real" and should be honored as such... so paint placement on the canvas itself became an art in and of itself. Modern art built on that. Photography is a form of art, as is videography. It only makes since that folks posting to youtube will cause people watching youtube to question what is real because it's an artform. Art reflects life and life reflects art. You look around your physical place where you sit now, and I can almost gaurantee that you will see a logo or ad or some other type of corporate world sneaking in around you, unless you live in the far regions of the world and don't have a computer, in which case you aren't reading this anyways... you see that computer you are reading this on has a corporate logo on it, and that's a form of advertising hinting to you that you need to buy a certain brand... It's natural for that sort of stuff to exist in our world today. Shucks, you can't even go to the moon without avoiding advertising... you see some folks on a lunar shuttle once stuck an American flag up there making it American branded....
You mean cars are not supposed to explode on impact? But it happens all the time on TV! And if it's on TV you know it's probably true.
Isn't it?
No, seriously. Isn't it?
Anything you do can get you slashdotted, including nothing.
Safety is expensive. Also it can be used to promote anything you want. And if the coice for safety is not in the hands of the consumer, it benefits big corporations that could afford to implement it. You can argue that airbags saves lifes, but only if I'm not driving twice the speed I usually drive *because* I have an expensive airbag installed in my fancy car.
In some cases, the sense of security is more dangerous than not having any.
The problem is not who wrote the law in the first place, because the first draft is tampered with to make the law's final text. And big companies usually monitor for any law that could be used to extend their business, and contact their representatives to modify and promote it when they need.
Don't be fooled by politicians. There's always companies behind them, bigger or smaller. And to some extent, you will find that their motivation are aligned to those of companies they represent. That's not a bad thing, politicians often favor a balance between what the public want and what the companies want. Big big companies generally pay politicians to act in their favor, but they don't have to pay every politician, just enough.
Howz that different than mainstream TV?
Gosh, I didn't know the interweb was so deceptive. But I am sure that the person I was cybering with in Stormwind last night was REALLY an 18 year old girl. I'm SURE!
Life needs more saving throws.
Deceptive or hidden advertising seems to be becoming far more common. Consider http://www.noscruf.org/. "NOSCRUF" presents itself as an organization against men who don't shave, and results of their surveys have been quoted by mainstream media without any recognition of the fact that, in reality, it's a fake organization created as an ad compaign by Gillette.
You mean http://www.savetoby.com/ isnt real?
My heart is broken.
Has anyone thought about how Lonelygirl15 became so popular in the first place? YouTube has the power to pull any videos, so that would imply it also has the power to promote any videos, too. Right?
Whoever started this Lonelygirl15 thing was taking a chance because YouTube is presumably based on the public watching and rating videos, right? What does it take to be "featured"? Being in the "featured" section means many more thousands of views, right? Or how was it that some random girl became so popular. Oh, and by the way, this was all a scheme to get publicity for an upcoming movie. What a coincidence that the one video blog that was actually a marketing campaign became so popular. It was random, right?
There were no guarantees that Lonelygirl was going to be popular. Or were there? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that the producers of Lonelygirl15 approached YouTube and paid for popularity?
Just a thought. I am not sure if anyone else has brought this up. What does that mean for the future of YouTube if there is payola?
I think the perfect object lesson as to why this is unlikely to happen very often is the unvetted viral VW video. How's that for a daily dose of alliteration?
Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
> In some cases, the sense of security is more dangerous than not having any.
In some cases I suppose that might be true, but as several other people have demonstrated with facts, as opposed to vague handwaving about menacing corporations, not this one.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
EuroNCAP may be a harder test than the NHTSA test, I don't doubt that, as the NHTSA test is crap (and the results don't mean much anyway). I think (and probalbly the OP since we seem to agree on most of the points in this thread) the point is that the specific laws are dumb. If the government wants to say, "cars must be able to protect the passengers with xx% reliablilty in a head on collision of yy mph...". That's fine with me. What I don't like is when the government says "you must put airbags in a car". They're legislating the wrong thing. If they specify a broad result (like people shouldn't get hurt in car crashes) that's fine, let it up to the individual companies to do research and find the best way to meet the law. There are lots of cars in Europe that are as safe or safer than ours, but don't have airbags (and would cost too much to retrofit them), so we don't get them over here. That's just one example, but there are tons of rediculous laws regulating the auto industry which serve mainly to protect the established players (did you know it costs a car company between 1 and 3 million dollars per model to do the NHTSA testing!)
Well duh.
>> Prior to car safety regulation, people were not any more likely to die in an auto accident than they are now
... well, I don't know, but I'm sure you have a tinfoil hat answer for that one too.h icalissues/economics/monopolyandindustrialorganiza tion/witchhunting.shtml
>Seat belts don't save lives, eh?
Seatbelts do save lives. People tend to drive more careless when they have seatbelts. Thus, your counterargument doesn't invalidate the proposition.
> Standard Oil was broken up because it
Standard Oil was broken up because... because it was a convenient way how to get rid of a very efficient competitor.
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosop
so like theres this xbox 360 video on youtube, showing how Microsoft's xbox360 has this problem with cold solderjoints - and how you can fix it with a hot air gun to reflow the solder...
except, this video I believe is true... so many people all with the same 3 red lights of death problem. microsoft is being very nice (and very quiet) about replacing broken units. their customer service people saying things like "yeah, the freezing problems are related to the redlights of death problems"...
another funny thing... after posting that heatgun video to xbox.com's forums, very shortly the entire 8-page thread was deleted... conspiracy? cover-up? hmmm....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7Wz4XtTIxk
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
The realest person on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWc8IKNwBQk
Big Tobacco really doesn't at all mind not being able to advertise on TV and plastering their products with "WARNING: THIS PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU"?
Yes. The tobacco companies know that a warning won't stop an addict - if that was enough then no one would be addicted to cigarettes. It is called CYA and until one novel legal tactic was recently tried, it protected them against almost all legal liability for something like 30 years. One thing is for certain, such requirements haven't hurt their profits and that's all that matters.
the fight the auto companies put up against mandatory seat belts was somehow a ruse and they really wanted them all the time so that they could somehow use this to drive out smaller car companies?
They didn't fight it all that hard, just enough to make sure nothing really harmful to their business was written into law. And you sure haven't been paying attention if you haven't heard of all the foreign vehicles that never maket it to market in the USA due to the onerous "safety" mandates. One thing is for certain, such requirements haven't hurt their profits (bad management in other areas is clearly to blame) and that's all that matters.
I don't see how a rational person could view the situation otherwise, do you just choose to ignore the outcome of all these so called "do gooder" laws? Are you completely unaware of the phenomenon of "regulatory capture?"
> One thing is for certain, such requirements haven't hurt their profits and that's all that matters.
I can't find any data on this in a brief googling. Do you have any? It seems counterintuitive that a decreasing smoker population would somehow lead to an increase in tobacco company profits.
> I don't see how a rational person could view the situation otherwise, do you just choose to ignore the outcome of all these so called "do gooder" laws? Are you completely unaware of the phenomenon of "regulatory capture?"
My only assertion is that the government forced auto companies to do something they would not otherwise have done that made cars safer. I can't really see any way to deny this. I'm sure the auto companies can twist the laws so they don't suffer too much or at all, but I don't see how that affects my thesis, which is that the idea that all laws are made by and for the exclusive benefit of the rich is ridiculous.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
It seems counterintuitive that a decreasing smoker population would somehow lead to an increase in tobacco company profits.
If you look at the historical share price of philip morris (NYSE:MO) from circa 1970 to circa 1988 when they started to diversify by purchasing Kraft, they experienced a net increase of about 4500%, handly outperforming the DOW, S&P and NASDAQ. Some of that growth is attributable to overseas sales, but my point that the "dogooder" laws 'imposed' on the tobacco industry didn't hurt them still stands, they clearly did more than fine even after the laws were enacted.
However, you should note that a lack of television advertising and a mandatory label on the box are correlated factors, not causative. There are plenty of other non-law reasons to explain the declining population of smokers and thus any effect it might have on tobacco company profits.
I don't see how that affects my thesis, which is that the idea that all laws are made by and for the exclusive benefit of the rich is ridiculous.
You are assuming that the benefits must be direct and obvious. My thesis is that in cases where the direct and obvious effects seem to be counter to the interests of the powerful, the indirect benefits are just as, if not more, valuable.
> If you look at the historical share price of philip morris (NYSE:MO) from circa 1970 to circa 1988 when they started to diversify by purchasing Kraft,
There's a lot of noise there. Kraft, last I checked, doesn't make cigarettes. My interpretation of these events is that PM saw the writing out of the wall and started insulating itself from the increasingly less-profitable, more-exposed-to-liability tobacco industry by diversifying.
> My thesis is that in cases where the direct and obvious effects seem to be counter to the interests of the powerful, the indirect benefits are just as, if not more, valuable.
In complete opposition to occams razor. I'm sure you can invent all kinds of explanations after the fact, but I just don't buy it. The list is too long: OSHA, emissions standards, environmental laws, it just goes on. Unless you can come up with something concrete that addresses these areas without vague handwaving and talking about increases in stock prices since 1970 - and whose hasn't? - I ain't listening.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
There's a lot of noise there. Kraft, last I checked, doesn't make cigarettes.
Which is exactly why I said to look at the share price BEFORE they purchased Kraft and to compare it to the broader markets which lowers the noise floor substantially.
My interpretation of these events is that PM saw the writing out of the wall and started insulating itself from the increasingly less-profitable, more-exposed-to-liability tobacco industry by diversifying.
Of course they did. My point was that their acquiescence to those labeling and restricted advertising laws back in 1969 did not hurt business because they outperformed the market by a substantial margin for close to 20 years. They did not lose business, they did not just maintain business, they didn't even just keep up with the rest of big business, they grew substantially faster than the average - purely from tobacco sales. Furthermore, ALL legal liability for the effects of their products was avoided during that period too due in part to the warning labels being an excuse that smokers were fully informed of the risks.
If you want to pooh-pooh such clear-cut results, then you are just playing ostrich.
I just don't buy it.
And that's exactly why they continue to get away with it.
The list is too long: OSHA, emissions standards, environmental laws, it just goes on
As if I have time to run down every one of your items, how about you open your eyes and do the research yourself? Its your "hand-waving" away of straightforward results that is contradiction to occam's razor. Big Money dominates US federal law making and has done so blatantly since at least WWII. Follow the money, it ain't hard to do.
I will say that one of your examples, emissions standards, work the same way that safety standards do - ever wonder why SUVs don't have the same requirements that small cars do? That they have been almost unregulated? Because until just recently, the only large scale manufacturers of SUVs were American and there was no risk of losing marketshare to foreign manufacturers as there obviously was with small cars. Follow the money.
> Big Money dominates US federal law making and has done so blatantly since at least WWII.
That's not something I disputed. I understand that money generally twists laws to suit itself. But the originator of this post stated categorically that ALL LAWS, save the moral ones like murder and the like, are made for the exclusive benefit of moneyed interests. If that was true, much of the legislation I detailed would never have gotten to the point of being legislation.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
That's a strawman. The OP said nothing about exclusive benefit, he said that all laws are designed to benefit the moneyed interests, but he did not say that no one else benefits too.
Here's the line:
Now I agree. Have I known "car safety regulations" meant enforcing having either an airbag or safety belt I wouldn't have posted that. I didn't knew who Nader is, also. I may also have sound ambiguous.
The thing in Brazil is, cars are expensive. Airbags are very expensive, and come as default in very expensive cars. People drive very expensive cars very very fast, *because* they have airbags installed. In these cases, the sense of security is more dangerous than not having any.
Ralph Nader made a choice. He must have been representing the interests of good companies.
Also, you should always measure security with your foot on reality. Some measures should never be enforced in the name of security.