Disqus - Latest Comments for eee_eff

Re: You’d Have to Be Smoking Dope to Believe the Zittrain-Lessig Thesis

eee_eff — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:15:45 -0000

hmmm...lessig warns of a rock in the middle of the road. Car swerves, misses rock. Back seat driving TLFers claim rock never existed.

Yes, that is exactly what happened.

Re: The News Frontier: Innovation in Journalism Is Hard but Necessary

Adam_Thierer — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:43:56 -0000

What the hell are you talking about? Wrong about what? Non-profits being able to be a part of the new media landscape? Did I say that somewhere? If so, cite it. Don't just make it up like you do all your other "facts."

Non-profits absolutely have a roll to play in the media marketplace. They always have. They only point I have made about non-profits and journalism is that we should not expect them to be the ONLY business method or model for journalism going forward.

Re: The News Frontier: Innovation in Journalism Is Hard but Necessary

bszoka — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:33:32 -0000

Woah, EF. I'm not sure what Adam said to you, but I for one don't have a problem with the idea that non-profits will play a larger role in journalism in the future. In fact, that's part of the kind of innovation I think will be necessary—not just in technologies but in business models as well. I happen to be a fan of the non-profit, since I work for one (PFF) and am on the Board of another (The Space Frontier Foundation, which I recently chaired).

So whatever Adam might or might have said to you, we're no monolith. In any event, "free market economics" isn't just about maximizing financial gain. Freedom is about allowing many different actors to pursue different values, which often means something very different from simple economic profit.

But let's be clear about one thing: the restraints imposed on non-profit corporations will pose a significant challenge to the journalistic independence of the media. I don't just mean the obvious fact that 501(c)(3)s are barred from endorsing candidates and strictly limited in their ability to "lobby" (i.e., endorse legislation) to under 20% of their budget (to simplify matters). The bigger concern is that non-profit organizations are essentially licensed by the State. If they lose their license (their tax-exempt status), they may simply go out of business. This gives the government enormous power over non-profits. The current system has worked tolerably well, with sufficiently clear guidelines that it's difficult for an administration to use the IRS to bully non-profits, but the Clinton Administration sure tried and I'm sure other administrations of both parties have, too, and will do so again in the future.

But I worry that attempts to shoe-horn the unique newsgathering and editorial role of newspapers into the non-profit status will ultimately end up only giving the government more leverage. Organizations that fear losing their license will shy away from criticizing incumbents and the government in general. Just look at Broadcast, especially under the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Perversely, we could see the new media that rise out of the ashes of newspapers being treated a lot more like broadcasters and a lot less like newspapers for First Amendment purposes. That would mean a great reduction in freedom of speech.

Re: The News Frontier: Innovation in Journalism Is Hard but Necessary

eee_eff — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:41:22 -0000

St. Louis isn't a no-newspaper town-yet. But it may soon be. Before that happens, though Emily Pulitzer--who knows just a little bit about newspapers--founded a not-for-profit:

http://www.stlbeacon.org/

This is, as readers of TLF should know, a development that I had predicted in comments to several posts by Adam T. Adam reply with invective and name calling. Time for Adam to admit he was wrong.

But, aside from noting that the TLFers are mentally incapable of perceiving any new trend that is not centered around their very limited understanding of free market economics, the development and continued extension of the not-for-profit sector into areas that they historically hadn't been part of seems interesting, and I am wondering why libertarians dislike it so.

Re: Privacy War II (Part 1): Attack of the Anti-Advertising Axis

eee_eff — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:54:29 -0000

I find use of the tie-in to the the German attack on Poland deeply offensive. Your disclaimer is irrelevant, as the graphic of the bombing of Warsaw is used so prominently.

It is wrong, Berin. The fact that you have relatives that were in concentration camps does not make your use of the Nazi tie-in any less wrong-it makes it more so.

Re: Canadiana… and Health Care Musings

eee_eff — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:47:37 -0000

Regarding the persistent non-reporting of the popularity of the Canadian healthcare system in the US media:

http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/c...

Re: Canadiana… and Health Care Musings

eee_eff — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:43:25 -0000

Note that the blog at Convergence Law Institute does not accept comments apparently. Whether that is because I particularly am filtered out or whether comments in general are not allowed, I cannot tell and do not have the time nor inclination to research.

Solveig notes in her post:

What interests me today is the popularity of this health care system in spite of such things. Most people are healthy most of the time. And they know the health system is there, and that everyone dealing with it is in pretty much the same boat (People naturally tend to compare their lot with those around them--See Axelrod on this phenomena in game simulations). So the system feels good. It provides security. It does not result in disturbing disparities. It feels damn good.

Congratulations on at least acknowledging that the Canadian system is popular. The press in USA has uniformly produced such a deluge of mis-information on this fact, that is very encouraging that there exists a right-wing commentator who sees outside of the reality distortion field. My family also originates in Canada. They are generally very conservative, and not in favor of big government. The present healthcare system of Canada is though very popular with them all.

However, that is where my agreement for your post ends.

The reality is, the feeling of security that this system creates is itself a social good that has a very real value. The evidence of this is the depth to which support for this government program has penetrated into the local social & economic fabric, as you have documented in your post.

When you say "Competition and choice are the main mechanisms by which hard cost and choice problems get solved." you would probably be surprised that I generally agree with that statement. However, what you do not realize is that you have circumscribed 'competition' and 'choice' to mean competition and choice within your free market dogma. Competition and choice happens at many different forms and scales. A scale of competition would be to measure, as a whole society, how much a society spends on healthcare. We find here that USA spends more than Canada, making the Canadian system as a whole more competitive than the US system. Another example are friends of mine, including a quite talented photographer, and two Architects, all who have immigrated from Poland. They are all talented, and all started their own businesses in: Canada. A decisive reason was the healthcare situation, which in USA would have been problematic.

Re the coverage of the Canadian healthcare system by US press, why has the US press never covered it's popularity?:

http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/b...

Re: iProvo: More Problems in Public Utility Paradise

eee_eff — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:34:24 -0000

There exists public institutions that provide for the free flow of information. You've probably used one, and they are very popular. They are called libraries.

If the free flow of information is deemed to be an important social good, why not use the institution of a library as a template for the provision of broadband services?

What is free broadband but the up to date digital version of a library? (In fact several libraries in my area have started to offer free wifi) Why is that any different than the computers that I can check out and login to and use at the library?

Are you against public libraries too?

Re: Snow Leopard, Binary Prefixes, and Congressional Dereliction of Duty

eee_eff — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:55:14 -0000

It gives Congress the power, but NOT the duty.
This is also true for copyright; Congress has the power but no affirmative duty...

Re: Privacy Elitists Launch All-Out Attack on Personalized Advertising Online

bszoka — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:16:45 -0000

As always, I appreciate Ed's thoughtfulness. There might very well be something to that concern if, indeed, users were helpless to protect their own privacy. But if a user really does feel that"they have no privacy," all they need do is change the cookie management settings in their browser and they will thwart nearly all online tracking.

If that's not good enough, let's talk about specific ways to empower users to control whatever else they might be worried about.

But as long as there's a feasible way for users to turn off tracking, Ed's argument amounts to the same tired saw that users just can't be trusted to take care of themselves.

We should be focusing on making these tools easier, not in changing the defaults, because that change does have real economic consequences for users.

Re: Privacy Elitists Launch All-Out Attack on Personalized Advertising Online

eee_eff — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:30:00 -0000

These so-called “consumer advocates” are actually anti-consumer elitists. Not only do they presume that consumers are too stupid or lazy to make their own decisions about privacy, but they ignore the benefits to consumers: more relevant advertising plus more and better content.

No, you can't make that charge stick. The consumer may want to protect their privacy by enacting the legislation that these groups are advocating. That is a straight-forward way of protecting privacy, by stamping out the problem at it's very source, rather than engage in a losing battle to plug all the sources of lost privacy at their perimeter.

In particular you have not addressed Ed Felten's excellent comment:

One of the standard claims about privacy is that people say they value their privacy but behave as if they don't value it. The standard example involves people trading away private information for something of relatively little value. This argument is often put forth to rebut the notion that privacy is an important policy value. Alternatively, it is posed as a "what could they be thinking" puzzle.

I used to be impressed by this argument, but lately I have come to doubt its power. Let me explain why.

Suppose you offer to buy a piece of information about me, such as my location at this moment. I'll accept the offer if the payment you offer me is more than the harm I would experience due to disclosing the information. What matters here is the marginal harm, defined as amount of privacy-goodness I would have if I withheld the information, minus the amount I would have if I disclosed it.

The key word here is marginal. If I assume that my life would be utterly private, unless I gave this one piece of information to you, then I might require a high price from you. But if I assume that I have very little privacy to start with, then selling this one piece of information to you makes little difference, and I might as well sell it cheaply. Indeed, the more I assume that my privacy is lost no matter what I do, the lower a price I'll demand from you. In the limit, where I expect you can get the information for free elsewhere even if I withhold if from you, I'll be willing to sell you the information for a penny.

Viewed this way, the price I charge you tells you at least as much about how well I think my privacy is protected, as it does about how badly I want to keep my location private. So the answer to "what could they be thinking" is "they could be thinking they have no privacy in the first place".

Re: ClaimMyName: Self-Help Against Name-Squatting on Social Media Services

bszoka — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:31:00 -0000

Clearly, my parents were thinking ahead!

Your point is a fair one, EF. Apparently, there are a mere 172 Szokas in the U.S.!

But yes, many of my friends having kids are, indeed, deliberately picking out unique names because of the Internet era. I suspect that trend with accelerate as more couples hyphenate or even amalgamate their names--thus creating a much more diverse mix of last names. For example, a friend of mine, formerly Bobby Smith, is now Bobby Smithney, having married one Ms. Courtney.

Re: ClaimMyName: Self-Help Against Name-Squatting on Social Media Services

eee_eff — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 04:06:51 -0000

The value of this varies greatly from person to person; see http://howmanyofme.com. According to that site there is only one of me, so who would sit on that name? No if you are John Smith....

I had read a story that indicated that soon-to-be-parents were actually picking out names so their future children would be unique when "googled" That seems silly--by the time these children are grown up the likelihood of the net being the same seem remote indeed.

Re: Copyright Duration and the Mickey Mouse Curve

eee_eff — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:06:31 -0000

I think there are two things being confused. When Europeans refer to the "moral rights of the author" they (at least in the context of Architectural work, and it is probably the same with authorship of books, poems) mean the right to attach one's own reputation to that work, i.e., to be credited with that work. That's a (much) bigger issue in Europe than it is in USA (I practice architecture in USA, but my father in law does so in Europe)

Looking at those who pushed for the copyright extension, (Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, for example) it seems that Hollywood was always very close to that action, and I doubt that Czeslaw Milosz, for example had anything much to do with the extension of the copyright term.

Economist had an interesting graphic several years back--starting with the "Queen Anne's Laws" which I believe were even shorter than the term Congress initially proscribed.

Recall that Congress is under no affirmative duty to establish copyright laws; if they choose to do so, they have the power, but not a duty.

Re: Copyright Duration and the Mickey Mouse Curve

eee_eff — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:55:29 -0000

Tom:

I find the Daystar case deeply troubling. In Europe there exists the moral right of the author to be credited with his or her work. Apparently,the Daystar ruling does away with this?

I can understand that things go into the public domain, but what Daystar seems to imply, is that Tom Bell could sell the book Great Expectations with Charles Dicken's name removed? Please tell me that is not allowed....

Re: The Search Wars: With Jingles Like This, Microsoft’s Bing Can’t Lose!

eee_eff — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:40:38 -0000

Berin:

I had to ask because you guys do tend to support MS, and I've been getting spam saying something like "have you tried this new search engine..." with links to the bing site...

These are the same guys that thought up the name zune....

Re: The Search Wars: With Jingles Like This, Microsoft’s Bing Can’t Lose!

bszoka — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:33:05 -0000

EF, I'm really hurt that you actually had to ask that! After all this time...

OF COURSE I was kidding! Hence, my snide comment about the backup singers.

But. I do have to admit, the jingle is annoyingly catchy.

Re: The Search Wars: With Jingles Like This, Microsoft’s Bing Can’t Lose!

eee_eff — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:27:40 -0000

Berin, please tell me that you are being sarcastic when you say "this gem." If you are, I have some respect for you. If you're not, I feel sorry for you that you this warmed over piece of astroturfing contains any shred of quality.

Google may have something to worry about, but before they have to worry about Microsoft, they have to worry about 50,000,000 other eventualities, such as the much more likely scenario of General Motors reinventing itself as an internet company built around a new search engine called the Edsel II....

Re: Should You Really Need a License to Run a Video Arcade?

eee_eff — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:00:24 -0000

I am glad they denied them their license. My daughter once went to a birthday party at one, and she wanted to play a video game.

The video game had all nice colors and a title something like African adventure.

Guess what they game was?

Run over animals with blood on the windsheild and a horrible laughing sound every time an animal was run over. My daughter was shocked. there was no warning whatsoever on the video game re this type of content.

Re: Newsflash to FCC: iPhone is a Closed Platform, and Consumers Love It

eee_eff — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:56:28 -0000

hmmm... yes they like it as long as it doesn't EXPLODE.....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10302038-37.html

Re: Can Science Rule?

eee_eff — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:19:06 -0000

"This is not merely an accident. In the private sector, failure often has natural and severe consequence for those who support or act on a bad idea. In government, failure often has no consequences except embarrassment for those who act on or support a bad idea."

Solveig: I think you are ignoring that this is the whole point of democracy and the free press: they work together to throw out those politicians who don't deliver.

Amartya Sen explores the dynamics of this in Development as Freedom....

EEE_EFF

Re: Wired on Google’s Coming Antitrust Nightmare

eee_eff — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:55:32 -0000

No. bundling is more complicated than that. The browser and the OS for example is impermissible and illegal bundling.

I am not sure the issue of computer and OS bundling has come before the courts in terms on the PC, but there was a case with IBM and their mainframe software...

Re: Wired on Google’s Coming Antitrust Nightmare

eee_eff — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:51:59 -0000

No--the difference is the anti-competitive behavior and contracts that Microsoft has illegally promulgated are in fact preventing OS-less computers from being sold. The FTC has been slow to respond, and MS has proved themselves more agile and better supplied with lawyers--but they have broken the law.

Re: Wired on Google’s Coming Antitrust Nightmare

eee_eff — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:27:00 -0000

Although Microsoft ultimately settled, the public beating appears to have taken a toll on the company, which has been unable to maintain its reputation for innovation and industry leadership.

Adam, that's bizarre to ascribe Microsoft's present reputation to the beating it took in anti-trust court.

I'd be more likely to ascribe Microsoft's poor reputation to poor products (Vista, the Zune, every edition of Windows, the user interface in the new MS Office) or better products from it's competition (for example the wii, Apple's OS) or their anti-competitive behavior (eg. their licensing deals, such as those Mike RT mentions above) which shows the Microsoft is themselves aware of how inferior their product is. Not to mention such anti-freedom comments like the famous one re: linux being 'viral' or those contained in the Halloween memo. MS is fully capable of destroying their reputation without any help from the DOJ...

Re: Mike Palage: ICANN 3.0 Should “Refocus” on Original Purpose

eee_eff — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:26:03 -0000

ICANN must hardcode into its policies and its contracts the principle that its policies cannot supersede national laws;

Very dangerous--so a country that can pass laws against certain sites, and require ICANN to enforce them. This is a backdoor for the IP fascsits to get the DMCA or the ACTA enforced by a supra-national body.

Oh, and where is the coverage at this supposedly pro-fredom site about the ACTA???