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

Patreon: Blocking platforms from sharing user video data is unconstitutional

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Patreon: Blocking platforms from sharing user video data is unconstitutional

#41

Post by zik »

coldtea wrote: post #30
zik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto was meant to make it possible to bypass banks, not get rid of middlemen like Patreon.

It was promised to do much more, including getting rid of middlemen and being able to trivially send crypto (e.g. BTC) to creators.

It makes it possible to bypass middlemen, it doesn't make it mandatory.

Patreon provides a few services to artists - hosting and distributing materials, providing secure areas etc. - so it does have some value. It's not just a pure toll taker.

Re: Patreon: Blocking platforms from sharing user video data is unconstitutional

#42

Post by justinclift »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #31
justinclift wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you're trying to push that. :( It was a smart arse response to a smart arse question.

> It was a smart arse response to a smart arse question. Haven't come across that justification before. If it was a smart arse question, I'd be guessing it was justified in the face of attempts at the Australian government at the time attempting to further their already advanced designs toward creating a surveillance state. For the sake of clarification, I'm pointing it out as an example of denial-based justification…

> Haven't come across that justification before.

You haven't really looked at all then. Go find the video that shows the question as well, rather than the one you have that just shows an out-of-context response.

That'll make it clear.

It has nothing at all to do with anything you're pushing in the rest of your response.

Re: Patreon: Blocking platforms from sharing user video data is unconstitutional

#43

Post by rchaud »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #6

Wait, how is targeted advertising on YouTube compliant?

Targeted advertising is handled by Google's ad platform. Loading YT loads Google's ad scripts. This is actually a good argument for why YT and Google Ads should not be under the same roof.

Patreon is sending data to Meta by loading the Meta marketing pixel on their site when you're logged in to Patreon.com.

Re: Patreon: Blocking platforms from sharing user video data is unconstitutional

#44

Post by rchaud »

timthelion wrote: post #23

Their legal argumentation is extremely weak. That said, if they do end up having to pay $2500 per violation they'll probably go bankrupt...

What if they did some out-of-the-box thinking and stopped loading 3rd party ad scripts on their site?

Re: Patreon: Blocking platforms from sharing user video data is unconstitutional

#45

Post by rchaud »

drewcoo wrote: post #13

Is this move intended to justify Patreon taking a bigger cut, so that they can justify the cost of our privacy? They could do that and still siphon off much less than YouTube would. Alternately, can this be seen as a chink in their armor and a way for someone(s) new to compete in their market?

> Alternately, can this be seen as a chink in their armor and a way for someone(s) new to compete in their market?

The last couple of years in tech tells me there is no "market" that doesn't involve not shuttling your data to the worst companies in the world.

Re: Patreon: Blocking platforms from sharing user video data is unconstitutional

#46

Post by BLKNSLVR »

justinclift wrote: post #42
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was a smart arse response to a smart arse question. Haven't come across that justification before. If it was a smart arse question, I'd be guessing it was justified in the face of attempts at the Australian government at the time attempting to further their already advanced designs toward creating a surveillance state. For the sake of clarification, I'm pointing it out as an example of denial-based justification…

> Haven't come across that justification before. You haven't really looked at all then. Go find the video that shows the question as well, rather than the one you have that just shows an out-of-context response. That'll make it clear. It has nothing at all to do with anything you're pushing in the rest of your response.

When a reporter asked Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, “Won’t the laws of mathematics trump the laws of Australia?,” Mr. Turnbull reportedly responded “Well the laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.”

Excerpt from: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/no-the-laws-of-australia-...

Re: Patreon: Blocking platforms from sharing user video data is unconstitutional

#47

Post by defrost »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #46
justinclift wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Haven't come across that justification before. You haven't really looked at all then. Go find the video that shows the question as well, rather than the one you have that just shows an out-of-context response. That'll make it clear. It has nothing at all to do with anything you're pushing in the rest of your response.

When a reporter asked Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, “Won’t the laws of mathematics trump the laws of Australia?,” Mr. Turnbull reportedly responded “Well the laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.” Excerpt from: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/no-the-laws-of-aus…

And .. the context that followed that you omitted:

    what we are seeking to do is to secure their assistance. They have to face up to their responsibility. They can’t just wash their hands of it and say it’s got nothing to do with them," Turnbull said when asked how the encryption should be broken.
I'm no fan of Turnball for many many reasons .. but he was not an idiot about technology and well understood mathematics (for someone not in the field professionally).

As stated above by another commentator he made a smart arse response to a smart arse question, as is intuitively obvious to the meanest intellect, and then clarified that legal steps would be taken to ensure to cooperation of the major invested actors.

Post reply on HN