181–190 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't change anything. The algorithms are broken and they will always be without general AI. Either you have a human inspecting it and seeing that Samsung are trying to be fascists about it, or you use an algorithm and stuff like that happens.
You say AI is stupid, OK, but you strangely assume NI is not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's amazing how people act like they have the "right" to post some content anywhere. It's amazing how, every time a private organization is criticized for how it handles speech on its platform, some tedious rando jumps out of the woodwork to smugly lecture everyone about how private organizations don't have legal obligations to host anything. Yes. We know. We know, we know, we know, we all know. The First Amendment…
On on the side of, society extends corporations a lot of rights and protection. Stand to reason that demands that they serve the public interest aren't unreasonable. Especially in this case where the claim is corporations are abusing a right; copyright and trademark protection.
Satire is fair use. Someone should sue Samsung, Get Lawrence Lessig on this!
US government just needs to enforce laws against corporations abusing the DMCA. Samsung committed perjury by saying they hold the copyright to these videos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Combination of things. For fiber, direct Ethernet connections, etc that have clearly separated channels symmetric is fairly common. In ADSL and cable network the spectrum is shared for up- and download channels, so they have to balance it. And since marketing mostly happens over download speeds and most people don't upload very much, offering eg. 50/10 instead of 30/30 makes more sense. I don't know why basically all…
People don't upload very often because their upstream sucks. This is chicken-and-egg bullshit. I am sure it is not that difficult to provision. The area I resided in, had only DSL. Later, a cable company ran FTTP, with a ONT outside, that converted the fiber to coax-DOCSIS, and then requires the usage of a cable modem? The ONT has a RJ-45 port, but the cable company does not know how to enable it. The DSL was oversub…
Not to sound rude, but you don't actually believe that, do you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On on the side of, society extends corporations a lot of rights and protection. Stand to reason that demands that they serve the public interest aren't unreasonable. Especially in this case where the claim is corporations are abusing a right; copyright and trademark protection.
Which in this case, just to keep things concrete, would be in the service of compelling people to host objectionable speech against their will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a popular myth that yelling "fire" in a theater is unlawful. For speech to be unlawful it must incite violence: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time... http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...
Being trampled to death is fairly violent. I wonder how non-intential violence would be viewed by a court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing how people act like they have the "right" to post some content anywhere. Youtube, facebook, reddit, hacker news are all private organizations. They are not legally obligated to host your content (in some cases, like copyright infringement, they are legally obligated to NOT host your content). The only thing that keeps these sites from arbitrarily censoring their users is money. If facebook deleted every…
>It's amazing how people act like they have the "right" to post some content anywhere. It's amazing how, every time a private organization is criticized for how it handles speech on its platform, some tedious rando jumps out of the woodwork to smugly lecture everyone about how private organizations don't have legal obligations to host anything. Yes. We know. We know, we know, we know, we all know. The First Amendment…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your presupposition is that it is in Google's (and Youtube's) best interest to guarantee that videos are correctly allowed or denied based on the balance of copyright, trademark and fair use. It could very well be that their best interest is in satisfying their big customers, the companies that invest massive amounts of money in advertising, publishing and divulging their products and services through Google platform…
It's amazing how people act like they have the "right" to post some content anywhere. Youtube, facebook, reddit, hacker news are all private organizations. They are not legally obligated to host your content (in some cases, like copyright infringement, they are legally obligated to NOT host your content). The only thing that keeps these sites from arbitrarily censoring their users is money. If facebook deleted every…
So maybe before you come rushing in to post your "ha-HA! Literally no one in history has ever considered that this is a corporation, or pointed this out, or had exactly this discussion, I must smugly educate them on that fact" lecture next time, you should do your homework first?