Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

mcmansionhell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 388 posts

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#311

Post by Houshalter »

allworknoplay wrote: post #145
uses wrote: post #69

I totally understand the whole "McMansions are bad architecture" thing... However, something about it really bothers me. There was an episode of 99% Invisible where the guest was talking about their McMansions blog and how it makes fun of these Horrid dwellings. The whole thing stank of classist elitism. The Wrong Type of people were getting the chance to design and build large houses, and of course they're applying…

I thought I was the only bothered by that blog (the 99pi episode was based on it). I agree with practically all of its conclusions (ugly, oversized, out of place, generic, etc.), but the entire thing was a bunch of worthless value judgements: this is bad, that is bad. Not: this is bad because of function, but literally "this should never happen" -- no explanation. Real example from way back machine, from the blog's m…

I made the same complaints when this blog was first posted on HN. All of their rules are entirely arbitrary and subjective opinions. They give very little argument or reasoning to support them. The best they have is side by side comparisons. Where they say "Isn't the one on the left so much better?" And on all of them I completely disagree and think the McMansion actually looks better. I just don't like the "simple, old fashioned, perfectly symmetrical" aesthetic that the author worships.

Worse is that most of their advice is actually harmful. For instance they don't like windows, especially asymmetrical ones. But lots of scientific studies have found that windows improve mental health significantly in a number of ways. Sunlight is very good. Or they demand houses be symmetrical. But if I've learned anything from games like dwarf fortress and Minecraft, that's not true. While symmetry might look nice, it generally creates designs that are less practical than if you weren't constrained by it. And every rule they have is like that. Just purely aesthetic constraints that trade off against other more practical values.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#312

Post by icebraining »

Analemma_ wrote: post #78
icebraining wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe their agreement allows them to act as an "enforcement arm" of the agents? What I find interesting is the choice to threatening them rather than just sending a DMCA takedown to Tumblr. Then again, the people (bots?) sending these emails may have no idea where it's hosted.

> Maybe their agreement allows them to act as an "enforcement arm" of the agents? I don't think the courts recognize such agreements as valid, as the demise of Righthaven showed.

I'm thinking more of a financial backing of the lawsuit, not as plaintiff. You know, being the Thiel for the agent's Hulk Hogan.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#313

Post by Houshalter »

I really dislike this blog. Their rules are just subjective opinions and completely arbitrary. They don't give any arguments or reasoning to support them. When they do the side by side comparisons with traditional architecture, I usually prefer the McMansions. They just look cooler. I like that they aren't perfectly symmetrical and simple.

Much of their advice could actually be harmful. E.g. reducing the number of windows to make it fit into their desired style. Windows have been shown to be very beneficial to mental health. E.g. hospital patients in a room with a window recover earlier, depressed people improve a bit when they can see trees, bright sunlight is hugely important in establishing the circadian rhythm, etc.

Or the demands for the houses to be perfectly symmetrical and "balanced" is very constraining. It eliminates 99% of design space. There are otherwise more optimal designs that must be discarded because they don't meet that constraint. A room must arbitrarily become so much bigger or smaller, or eliminated entirely, to satisfy it.

And the same is true for all of the rules. They are all purely aesthetic constraints.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#314

Post by jameskegel »

Houshalter wrote: post #313

I really dislike this blog. Their rules are just subjective opinions and completely arbitrary. They don't give any arguments or reasoning to support them. When they do the side by side comparisons with traditional architecture, I usually prefer the McMansions. They just look cooler. I like that they aren't perfectly symmetrical and simple. Much of their advice could actually be harmful. E.g. reducing the number of wi…

"What she said is invalid because I have personal preferences"

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#315

Post by cookiecaper »

hluska wrote: post #275
cookiecaper wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty conventional in these types of cases. I've received a similar C&D and read several others and they all invoke the CFAA. It seems boilerplate for C&D related to online activities. The CFAA makes it unlawful to exceed authorized access to any protected computer system (essentially, any computer in the United States). If someone claims that you've violated their ToS, they almost always also claim that by so…

I should have given a little more context. Take a look at the statement that Zillow gave the Verge: “Zillow has a legal obligation to honor the agreements we make with our listing providers about how photos can be used,” Zillow tells The Verge in a statement. “We are asking this blogger to take down the photos that are protected by copyright rules, but we did not demand she shut down her blog and hope she can find a…

Yeah, I'm not trying to imply that Zillow's conduct is morally justified or correct. However, based on my experience (I'm not a lawyer), it is conventional conduct.

It is probably less likely that Zillow is intentionally trying to play hardball, and more likely that they pulled out the "Terms of Use violation" boilerplate and made the necessary adjustments.

People are successfully sued under the civil provisions of the CFAA on a regular basis and they rarely have to face the possibility of spending their twenties in a jail cell for conventional scraping or copyright infringement (another thing that has both criminal and civil penalties).

weev is an exception presumably because his disclosure contained a bunch of personally identifiable information from Very Important People. Swartz was an exception probably because he was apprehended by police for illegally breaking and entering a network closet at MIT, triggering the prosecutor's question "What crimes did this guy commit to justify his arrest?".

The CFAA is terrible law, and I say that on HN so much that it will probably be the next thing dang yells at me for saying too much. Large companies like Zillow abuse the legal system to strongarm small entrepreneurs and publishers, and that's disgusting. The fact that it's possible shows that, in large measure, we've lost the plot.

We need serious reform not just for the CFAA, but the legal processes that allow this state of affairs.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#316

Post by triangleman »

SnowingXIV wrote: post #276

So this made things even more difficult for me. I'm looking to buy a new house for around 300-500K. And I'd hate for it to be one of these, I don't need it to be some unique hipster snowflake because I need it to be marketable and sell well in the Midwest so most families are buying pretty standard craftsman style houses. Not the Silicon Valley entire house is a massive window. Main concern is getting money back or m…

You'll be fine.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#317

Post by Houshalter »

jameskegel wrote: post #314
Houshalter wrote: post #313

I really dislike this blog. Their rules are just subjective opinions and completely arbitrary. They don't give any arguments or reasoning to support them. When they do the side by side comparisons with traditional architecture, I usually prefer the McMansions. They just look cooler. I like that they aren't perfectly symmetrical and simple. Much of their advice could actually be harmful. E.g. reducing the number of wi…

"What she said is invalid because I have personal preferences"

That's their argument not mine. They don't talk about personal preferences. They talk about their rules like they are objective facts, and are extremely condescending to anyone that thinks differently. If they would admit it was their personal aesthetic preferences, then that's fine.

Re: Zillow forces McMansion Hell to delete posts

#320

Post by cookiecaper »

jessaustin wrote: post #310
cookiecaper wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which case are you referring to? weev was convicted and sent to prison for violating the CFAA, based on his "unauthorized access" to AT&T's site (the limits of which are presumably defined by the ToS). His conviction was reversed on the technicality of improper venue, not the dubious nature of the conviction or the belief that ToS should not be eval'd into federal law.

Did ATT's TOS say e.g. "we have a bunch of customers' PII posted online; please don't read those"? It seems, rather, that the court considered the act itself bad enough to punish regardless of any implied agreement forbidding or allowing the act. (Of course I think the court is wrong.) IANAL, but my feeling is that eventually the evil companies will come up with a TOS so awful that even the Supreme Court will be sick…

A standard ToS prohibits most types of access; in many cases, a literal reading of a ToS would prohibit any access (one ToS I read says that their site should not be accessed by "any method, automated or manual" (in the context of banning robots/scrapers)). They arrange it that way so that they can demand that you stop talking to their server whenever they dislike something you've done.

The CFAA is a critical component in maintaining highly significant tech monopolies like Facebook. I don't think that SCOTUS will clamp it down. Computer access is abstract enough that it is hard to get a political fervor generated, and most people are able to use their computers without impediment, so they're never going to really care (cf. copyright, which is possibly the most widely violated law today, yet the function of which most people continue to remain completely ignorant).

The parties that are interested in these things are going to be large companies that are paying lobbyists to get stricter restrictions pushed through, not political grassroots mobilizing to reverse it.

As an example, last year Congress passed and President Obama signed a law strengthening the CFAA's restrictions by prohibiting the circumvention of "any technological control on an Internet website or online service ... used to enforce online ticket purchasing limits or to maintain the integrity of posted online ticket purchasing order rules".

Like many laws, at a superficial reading, this looks fine, but then we get into the details. What constitutes an "event" or a "ticket"? Is a restaurant reservation an event, and does one circumvent a technological control if they inform a user that a reservation may be available (compare OpenTable)? Is hailing an Uber an event that creates a ticket, and if so, how would this impact third party applications that interface with Uber in some way? etc.

Like copyright, the CFAA, in some form or another, is here to stay, because it is a major part in the legal force used to prevent direct competition against the entrenched interests/incumbent players. It's really hard to get a political upswell over abstract, rarely-deployed concepts (even then, they make a token change and the meat of the policy remains intact).

Health coverage is a much more pressing abstract issue that negatively impacts a much larger percentage of the citizenry and we still can't find a way to agree on that, I'm not optimistic about copyright and/or network access.

It is possible that the CFAA will go away in many years after there is much more cross-generational technical awareness, but I'm personally doubtful. Would someone have been having the same kind of discussion re: copyright in the 18th century, as legal frameworks allowing people to own information emerged?

The ability to eval a ToS into federal law and get people sent to prison for it will probably go away, but the ability of a site's owner to pursue someone who won't quit asking their server for information in an undetectable-server-side, non-disruptive manner probably won't.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

Post reply on HN