The vibrant and open internet that Americans cherish isn't going anywhere. In the days, weeks and years following this vote, Americans will be merrily shopping online for the holidays, posting pictures on Instagram, vigorously voicing political views on Facebook and asking Alexa the score of the game.
That sounds closest to the nightmare scenario we're trying to avoid, where users are (even more) locked into only the most popular commercial services from Silicon Valley megacorps, who will be the most capable of paying for the "fast lanes" (most likely in the form of zero-rating).
Startups and small business will continue to hatch and flourish,
Hatch and die in the nest is more like it...they won't be able to afford "fast lanes" to compete with the most established players.
That's fine. There's nothing criminal, or IMO, particularly wrong with that. Especially if you expand "conservative" to include Breitbart.
Then you should have no problems with O'keef doing exactly the same thing.
I wouldn't, if that were what he was doing. But he's not asking conservatives to boycott companies that advertise on liberal news sites, he's using misleadingly edited videos to create a false scandal around institutions he doesn't like with the goal of causing their closure. Same end, very different means. The means matter. That's why I'd also disagree with trying to shut down an institution by bombing its offices, even though it may have the same goal as an advertiser boycott.
I'm not interested in arguments that revolve around spiritualism, so I don't talk about planned parenthood enough to immediately recognize it in the acronym "PP."
You mean besides trying to remove advertisers from any conservative outlet to financially starve them because they're conservative?
That's fine. There's nothing criminal, or IMO, particularly wrong with that. Especially if you expand "conservative" to include Breitbart.
The part where they got people to actually try and follow through with committing illegal acts, or where organizations actually did follow through with illegal acts(like with PP which is now under DOJ investigation).
I'm trying to find information on this. I don't know what "PP" is. Searching "media matters PP" didn't help.
Why complain about Bashar al Assad when that psycho kid next door is torching squirrels? Because greater degrees of evil are more notable. Media matters hasn't done anything anywhere near as dishonest, and AFAIK has not destroyed any institutions with manipulated evidence. The worst I could find is this:
For a while there probably will be many James O'Keefe vs. ACORN type incidents where mendacious activists casually implode institutions they don't like with faked videos, but eventually people will catch on and become more skeptical of recorded evidence. The downside is that people will also have to act more slowly on evidence that happens to be true.
You may believe this, but I can assure you that most lawmakers who oppose net neutrality are not as concerned about the nature of net neutrality's legislation as they are about the very existence of such regulations in any form. I would bet good money that if it were done "the right way" as you propose, conservatives would still work to repeal net neutrality, using some other excuse to conceal motives which most people would consider to be mustache-twirling villainy.
It's very easy to maintain that anonymity between a wallet address and your identity, including when converting it to something else. Ransomware and illegal markets on the darknet couldn't operate otherwise.
There are already laws around cash, and moving large amounts of it quickly becomes impractical (less so with 500 Euro notes, which I think should be phased out for this reason).
When it does, I want to see the look on the face of that stupid fucker who was just on CNN talking to Richard Quest, using "crypto" as a shorthand term for cryptocurrencies. Fuck that guy, I hope he loses everything for his linguistic war crimes.
Also it was weird watching a wall street suit talk on a mainstream news channel about how much he likes some of the more private cryptocurrencies, which are practically indistinguishable from purpose-built financial crime instruments. How are the relevant authorities not in red-alert, scramble-all-bureaucrats mode now that this stuff is in their faces?
Remember the good ol' days, when any company that conducted any business that remotely resembled today's cryptocurrency exchanges would've been furiously squashed like a particularly large and creepy bug by the nearest government? Remember when MMORPG virtual goods exchanges were under the microscope as possible avenues for money laundering? What happened to that? Did Trump stick a fox in the relevant henhouse to allow this madness to happen?
LOL this was my first thought! People get their resumes circle-filed and get shitcanned from their jobs for far less. These guys must have dirt on the CEO or something.
That's a big load of crazy nonsense, but If the alt-right wants to address income inequality, the left should consider working with them in achieving this goal. It's the most damaging form of inequality of our time.
(And afterwards we can get back to slowly steamrolling them on social justice issues;-) ).
And yet here you are posting on Slashdot, from a modern computer full of African conflict minerals in its screen and battery. Maybe having a chocolatey snack while you're at it. Speaking of computers, guess where they go when they're scrapped?
This assertion relies on what I call "The Unabomber option." In order to participate in society, you will have to "opt into" certain agreements - usually for utility services, housing, and some form of employment. The only alternative is to live alone in a shack deep in the woods, like the Unabomber. This incredibly undesirable alternative is presented as a perfectly good and reasonable option for the purpose of making an unfair agreement seem more consensual than it really is.
In the case of labor laws, the choice would've been to sign up for, or compete with, the aforementioned exploitative labor practices; or take the Unabomber option.
Coming back to housing, we have housing regulations for the same reason. Without them, landlords and homebuilders would minimize the safety and privacy of the housing they offer to maximize their own profit (at least on the low end of the market). The alternative was to construct your Unabomber shack on a squatted plot of land and hope you wouldn't be found out.
A large enough price dip would trigger a massive selloff among the market as a whole, including many of the "whales." Some irrational actors would indeed buy more, so the scenario assumes that they're a small enough minority not to derail the plan.
Look at any labor law or environmental law, just off the top of my head. In the absence of any such laws, any labor arrangement at least down to indentured servitude, if not slavery, of adults and children, would be enforceable as a private contract between individuals, and corporations would save money by heavily polluting the environment. These things did happen in the past in the absence of such laws.
Improving the practical freedom of the average human has always involved adding laws to the books. Aimless minimization of laws only benefits the most powerful at the expense of the rest of society.
The whales could have much to gain from tanking Bitcoin: Hold the coins to keep the value up, wait for publicly traded companies to form specializing in BitCoin transactions, then (before governments clamp down on cryptocurrencies or any strong signs of a coordinated clampdown are apparent), short those companies and dump the coins. Quickly use the money from the coins to buy even more short orders, and laugh at the collapse all the way to the bank.
Slashdot Mirror
The vibrant and open internet that Americans cherish isn't going anywhere. In the days, weeks and years following this vote, Americans will be merrily shopping online for the holidays, posting pictures on Instagram, vigorously voicing political views on Facebook and asking Alexa the score of the game.
That sounds closest to the nightmare scenario we're trying to avoid, where users are (even more) locked into only the most popular commercial services from Silicon Valley megacorps, who will be the most capable of paying for the "fast lanes" (most likely in the form of zero-rating).
Startups and small business will continue to hatch and flourish,
Hatch and die in the nest is more like it...they won't be able to afford "fast lanes" to compete with the most established players.
That's fine. There's nothing criminal, or IMO, particularly wrong with that. Especially if you expand "conservative" to include Breitbart.
Then you should have no problems with O'keef doing exactly the same thing.
I wouldn't, if that were what he was doing. But he's not asking conservatives to boycott companies that advertise on liberal news sites, he's using misleadingly edited videos to create a false scandal around institutions he doesn't like with the goal of causing their closure. Same end, very different means. The means matter. That's why I'd also disagree with trying to shut down an institution by bombing its offices, even though it may have the same goal as an advertiser boycott.
I'm not interested in arguments that revolve around spiritualism, so I don't talk about planned parenthood enough to immediately recognize it in the acronym "PP."
No, tell him to hang onto it, it's always fun to see the repo truck pick up a supercar!
You mean besides trying to remove advertisers from any conservative outlet to financially starve them because they're conservative?
That's fine. There's nothing criminal, or IMO, particularly wrong with that. Especially if you expand "conservative" to include Breitbart.
The part where they got people to actually try and follow through with committing illegal acts, or where organizations actually did follow through with illegal acts(like with PP which is now under DOJ investigation).
I'm trying to find information on this. I don't know what "PP" is. Searching "media matters PP" didn't help.
Why complain about Bashar al Assad when that psycho kid next door is torching squirrels? Because greater degrees of evil are more notable. Media matters hasn't done anything anywhere near as dishonest, and AFAIK has not destroyed any institutions with manipulated evidence. The worst I could find is this:
https://hotair.com/archives/20...
For a while there probably will be many James O'Keefe vs. ACORN type incidents where mendacious activists casually implode institutions they don't like with faked videos, but eventually people will catch on and become more skeptical of recorded evidence. The downside is that people will also have to act more slowly on evidence that happens to be true.
You may believe this, but I can assure you that most lawmakers who oppose net neutrality are not as concerned about the nature of net neutrality's legislation as they are about the very existence of such regulations in any form. I would bet good money that if it were done "the right way" as you propose, conservatives would still work to repeal net neutrality, using some other excuse to conceal motives which most people would consider to be mustache-twirling villainy.
"crypto" as shorthand for cryptocurrency
GET OUT
It's very easy to maintain that anonymity between a wallet address and your identity, including when converting it to something else. Ransomware and illegal markets on the darknet couldn't operate otherwise.
There are already laws around cash, and moving large amounts of it quickly becomes impractical (less so with 500 Euro notes, which I think should be phased out for this reason).
When it does, I want to see the look on the face of that stupid fucker who was just on CNN talking to Richard Quest, using "crypto" as a shorthand term for cryptocurrencies. Fuck that guy, I hope he loses everything for his linguistic war crimes.
Also it was weird watching a wall street suit talk on a mainstream news channel about how much he likes some of the more private cryptocurrencies, which are practically indistinguishable from purpose-built financial crime instruments. How are the relevant authorities not in red-alert, scramble-all-bureaucrats mode now that this stuff is in their faces?
Remember the good ol' days, when any company that conducted any business that remotely resembled today's cryptocurrency exchanges would've been furiously squashed like a particularly large and creepy bug by the nearest government? Remember when MMORPG virtual goods exchanges were under the microscope as possible avenues for money laundering? What happened to that? Did Trump stick a fox in the relevant henhouse to allow this madness to happen?
LOL this was my first thought! People get their resumes circle-filed and get shitcanned from their jobs for far less. These guys must have dirt on the CEO or something.
Indeed, it was in the US where an Amazon driver was caught on camera hastily taking a dump in a driveway.
1. Being born after 1985 or before 1975
2. Not living in NYC/SF/Austin/Boston
3. Being born without a penis
That's a big load of crazy nonsense, but If the alt-right wants to address income inequality, the left should consider working with them in achieving this goal. It's the most damaging form of inequality of our time.
(And afterwards we can get back to slowly steamrolling them on social justice issues ;-) ).
https://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Having a job as a Gen. Y'er doesn't pay enough to leave you with excess cash. My next paycheck won't leave me with any.
And yet here you are posting on Slashdot, from a modern computer full of African conflict minerals in its screen and battery. Maybe having a chocolatey snack while you're at it. Speaking of computers, guess where they go when they're scrapped?
This assertion relies on what I call "The Unabomber option." In order to participate in society, you will have to "opt into" certain agreements - usually for utility services, housing, and some form of employment. The only alternative is to live alone in a shack deep in the woods, like the Unabomber. This incredibly undesirable alternative is presented as a perfectly good and reasonable option for the purpose of making an unfair agreement seem more consensual than it really is.
In the case of labor laws, the choice would've been to sign up for, or compete with, the aforementioned exploitative labor practices; or take the Unabomber option.
Coming back to housing, we have housing regulations for the same reason. Without them, landlords and homebuilders would minimize the safety and privacy of the housing they offer to maximize their own profit (at least on the low end of the market). The alternative was to construct your Unabomber shack on a squatted plot of land and hope you wouldn't be found out.
A large enough price dip would trigger a massive selloff among the market as a whole, including many of the "whales." Some irrational actors would indeed buy more, so the scenario assumes that they're a small enough minority not to derail the plan.
Wrong, see above:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Voluntary agreements can be a tyrant's tool.
Look at any labor law or environmental law, just off the top of my head. In the absence of any such laws, any labor arrangement at least down to indentured servitude, if not slavery, of adults and children, would be enforceable as a private contract between individuals, and corporations would save money by heavily polluting the environment. These things did happen in the past in the absence of such laws.
Improving the practical freedom of the average human has always involved adding laws to the books. Aimless minimization of laws only benefits the most powerful at the expense of the rest of society.
If not, Ajit Pai doesn't care about what you have to say. Anti-net-neutrality bot comments are acceptable in any form however.
Not yet, anyway. As inequality worsens and trillionaires arise, that could change.
The whales could have much to gain from tanking Bitcoin: Hold the coins to keep the value up, wait for publicly traded companies to form specializing in BitCoin transactions, then (before governments clamp down on cryptocurrencies or any strong signs of a coordinated clampdown are apparent), short those companies and dump the coins. Quickly use the money from the coins to buy even more short orders, and laugh at the collapse all the way to the bank.