The headline and intro to the article cite the DMCA but the bulk of the examples reference UK and EU law. Additionally, most of the examples aren't related to copyright at all. Generally seems like a misleading article intended to conflate spurious takedown requests with DMCA requests (which can also be spurious, no doubt).
Additionally, the premise that actual copyright takedown notices shouldn't be available to the public is nuts. Whether you agree with the DMCA's implementation or not, any takedown mechanism must be available to all copyright holders and not just corporations with legal teams. The DMCA process is already more onerous for individuals given that they have to provide a legal street address in an era of doxxing (or pay for a P.O. Box).
1) You can use cookies without being anti-privacy, pro-data selling.
2) Why do you need cookies to operate a secure payment system?
At it's core, a payment system is a form. Yes, many bells and whistles around that form are powered by cookies/local storage, but they aren't necessary.
What's missing from the blog announcement is that on the at protocol, anyone can publish a verification of any account. It is then up to each client to decide which verifiers to display / trust / etc.
With that in mind, it seems like bluesky is trying to thread the needle on providing tools for the community to do their own verification (via the protocol) while also making their own client "notable user" friendly (via blessed verifications that show blue checks).
I also don't see why it wouldn't be possible for someone to build a labeler that shows verifications from non-bluesky blessed sources. Then community members could subscribe to that labeler to get non-blessed verifications that they choose to show. It wouldn't show up as a blue check but it would still show up on the user's profile in bluesky.
It would look something like this existing "verification" labeler that doesn't use the underlying verification feature on the protocol but instead has to maintain the data in a 3rd party store: https://imgur.com/a/tXR4FUu
Additionally, third-party clients like Pinksky or Skylight could choose to show blue checks or whatever UI for any verifiers they choose. All the data is on the protocol now, so the 3rd party clients wouldn't need to do the verification themselves.
I would go so far as to say it's nearly impossible to have completely impartial news. Everyone has biases and pressure being applied to them that will appear in their work. As we've seen just this year, an author's choice of style guide is political.
The math doesn't account for anything. The formula they published literally has (4 * 1/4) as part of the equation, hidden behind Greek letters, to make it appear more sophisticated.
It's "trade deficit / imports" without any care to why those numbers exist on a case-by-case basis.
This wasn't a thought out solution that took into account the vast multivariate things that happen in the real world, including those you mentioned.
They also used CCTLDs instead of countries which is how we ended up with:
* a tiny Australian island got much higher tariffs than Australia
* tariffs on an uninhabited island * an island that is only inhabited by a joint US/UK military base getting tariffs
Are they really CCTLDs? Not an attack, I am genuinely curious because I have been wondering how they came up with that list. Half the countries have trivial amounts of trade and it felt like a waste of time to even propose it.
The non-profit and staff were largely responsible for meatspace events such as writing camps for kids, resources for teachers, and supporting local writers groups via volunteer municipal liaisons.
The slides are really burying the details of the child grooming scandal. NaNoWriMo hosted a forum for their participants, including the children. (There were subforums specifically for the child-participants, so they can't claim they didn't know they had kids as users.) Moderators of those subforums were accused of using their access to the children to direct those kids to off-site places where they could be groomed. Then, when allegations of child grooming arose, the other moderators and/or staff claimed it was happening off-site.
The linked article is clearly sensationalist and focuses on "experts" who are trying to make their career off this "crisis" (I expect they all have books lined up and speaking engagements).
Meanwhile "As the New York Times reports, schools where smart devices have been partially or fully banned during instructional hours have seen incredible increases in student attentiveness and communication."
As much as their opinion page sucks, I'm much more inclined to go with the reporting in the New York Times instead of someone who says "zombie apologists" in all sincerity.
> I'm much more inclined to go with the reporting in the New York Times
Quite the opposite for me. I don't have a problem with their opinion pages, because it's labelled as such and is at times interesting. I wouldn't trust their reporting though, least of all the numbers.
I use them (more than one) as signals, and draw my own conclusions. I had subscribed to the NYT for several years, and my view is that much of their reporting is just a narrative that the journalist prefers. There's a certain amount of wiggle room with facts and even numbers, and the journalists make good use of it.
Distrust all media deeply. Not because there's an organizational directive to say something in a certain way, but they staff themselves with people who want to say something in a certain way.
Additionally, the premise that actual copyright takedown notices shouldn't be available to the public is nuts. Whether you agree with the DMCA's implementation or not, any takedown mechanism must be available to all copyright holders and not just corporations with legal teams. The DMCA process is already more onerous for individuals given that they have to provide a legal street address in an era of doxxing (or pay for a P.O. Box).
reply