FEED Validator

for Atom and RSS and KML

Congratulations!

This is a valid RSS feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

line 33, column 0: Use of unknown namespace: com-wordpress:feed-additions:1 (11 occurrences) [help]
```
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">169489720</site>	<item>
```
line 51, column 0: content:encoded should not contain data-type attribute (12 occurrences) [help]
```
Cops dodge <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2018/06/22/supreme-court-say ...
```
line 51, column 0: content:encoded should not contain data-id attribute (12 occurrences) [help]
```
Cops dodge <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2018/06/22/supreme-court-say ...
```

line 91, column 0: content:encoded should not contain decoding attribute [help]

<figure class="aligncenter size-large"><a href="https://www.stacksocial.com/ ...

line 91, column 0: content:encoded should not contain data-recalc-dims attribute [help]
```
<figure class="aligncenter size-large"><a href="https://www.stacksocial.com/ ...
```

line 350, column 0: content:encoded should not contain iframe tag [help]

<p><iframe src="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2315966/15090398-do-you-really-wa ...

Source: http://www.techdirt.com/techdirt_rss.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
>
<channel>
<title>Techdirt</title>
<atom:link href="https://www.techdirt.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<link>https://www.techdirt.com</link>
<description></description>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 17:57:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-US</language>
<sy:updatePeriod>
hourly </sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>
1 </sy:updateFrequency>

<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">169489720</site> <item>
<title>To The Surprise Of Absolutely No One, Cops Under Facial Recognition Bans Are Asking Other Agencies To Run Searches For Them</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/to-the-surprise-of-absolutely-no-one-cops-under-facial-recognition-bans-are-asking-other-agencies-to-run-searches-for-them/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/to-the-surprise-of-absolutely-no-one-cops-under-facial-recognition-bans-are-asking-other-agencies-to-run-searches-for-them/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Cushing]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 18:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[austin d]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[facial recognition]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[facial recognition ban]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[police]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[sfpd]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=441276&preview=true&preview_id=441276</guid>
<description><![CDATA[God forbid any of you peons break a law. It doesn’t matter if you only do it once. If you get caught, it’s all on you. But if you’re a cop, laws are, at best, suggestions. Break them if you can. Ignore them when they’re inconvenient. And treat any law or court ruling that reins […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[God forbid any of you peons break a law. It doesn’t matter if you only do it once. If you get caught, it’s all on you.
But if you’re a cop, laws are, at best, suggestions. Break them if you can. Ignore them when they’re inconvenient. And treat any law or court ruling that reins in officers (and/or protects constitutional rights) as optional unless there’s no way through it but to respect it.
Cops dodge <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2018/06/22/supreme-court-says-warrants-are-needed-cell-site-location-info/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2018/06/22/supreme-court-says-warrants-are-needed-cell-site-location-info/">warrant requirements</a> for cell phone location data by buying data directly from <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/09/yet-another-data-broker-found-to-give-massive-amounts-of-location-info-to-law-enforcement/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/09/yet-another-data-broker-found-to-give-massive-amounts-of-location-info-to-law-enforcement/">third-party data brokers</a>. Cops avoid <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/03/14/arkansas-senate-unanimously-approves-conviction-requirement-asset-forfeiture/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/03/14/arkansas-senate-unanimously-approves-conviction-requirement-asset-forfeiture/">local laws</a> limiting civil asset forfeiture by <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2017/07/24/doj-forfeiture-directive-gives-local-law-enforcement-chance-to-dodge-state-reform-efforts/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2017/07/24/doj-forfeiture-directive-gives-local-law-enforcement-chance-to-dodge-state-reform-efforts/">asking the feds</a> to “adopt” their latest stash of ill-gotten booty, allowing themselves to benefit directly from seizures otherwise restricted in their locales.
And, now that they’re subject to <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/05/16/city-san-francisco-bans-use-facial-recognition-tech-government-agencies/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/05/16/city-san-francisco-bans-use-facial-recognition-tech-government-agencies/">facial recognition tech bans</a> in several places around the nation, they’re ignoring those laws too. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/18/facial-recognition-law-enforcement-austin-san-francisco/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/18/facial-recognition-law-enforcement-austin-san-francisco/">Douglas MacMillan has the details for the Washington Post</a>.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Officers in Austin and San Francisco — two of the largest cities where police are banned from using the technology — have repeatedly asked police in neighboring towns to run photos of criminal suspects through their facial recognition programs, according to a Washington Post review of police documents.
In San Francisco, the workaround didn’t appear to help. Since the city’s ban took effect in 2019, the San Francisco Police Department has asked outside agencies to conduct at least five facial recognition searches, but no matches were returned, according to a summary of those incidents submitted by the department to the county’s board of supervisors last year.
[…]
Austin police officers have received the results of at least 13 face searches from a neighboring police department since the city’s 2020 ban — and have appeared to get hits on some of them, according to documents obtained by The Post through public records requests and sources who shared them on the condition of anonymity.
</blockquote>
By definition, these are isolated incidents. Roughly 99.9% of the nation is free of any facial recognition tech bans. And the number of violations reported here appear (that’s a very key word) to be extremely low given the number of theoretical opportunities available to law enforcement officers to break the law.
But let’s not pretend that means it’s ok. Any violation of the law is a violation of the law. No one’s letting you out of a speeding ticket because you generally follow the speed limit. And no court is just going to dismiss charges because it’s the only time you’ve ever murdered anyone.
True, violating facial recognition bans isn’t on par with murder. But it is on par with, at the very least, traffic violations. If we don’t get a free pass when we’ve been caught speeding, cops shouldn’t be given a free pass on facial recognition ban violations just because they haven’t violated the bans thousands of times.
The SFPD spokesperson confirmed no investigations were opened or officers disciplined for violating the ban by asking outside agencies to run searches for it. The same thing goes for the Austin PD, which only admitted the unlawful searches had been requested after being contacted by the Washington Post. It said vague things about an investigation, but the spokesperson said nothing that suggested people would be punished or steps would be taken to prevent further lawbreaking by the PD’s law enforcers.
But here’s the real heart of the issue: what’s reported here is most likely an undercount. These violations are likely occurring far more frequently. As the article points out, law enforcement agencies rarely like to discuss use of this tech, even when presenting evidence in court. What’s leaked out into the public domain via public records requests is most likely just the tip of the iceberg.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
[E]nforcing these bans is difficult, experts said, because authorities often conceal their use of facial recognition. Even in places with no restrictions on the technology, investigators rarely mention its use in police reports. And, because facial recognition searches are not presented as evidence in court — legal authorities claim this information is treated as an investigative lead, not as proof of guilt — prosecutors in most places are not required to tell criminal defendants they were identified using an algorithm, according to interviews with defense lawyers, prosecutors and judges.
“Police are using it but not saying they are using it,” said Chesa Boudin, San Francisco’s former district attorney, who said he was wary of prosecuting cases that may have relied on information the SFPD obtained in violation of the city’s ban.
</blockquote>
Even if we take the numbers at face value, it’s still a problem. And it’s one that has existed as long as law enforcement agencies have existed. To law enforcers, laws are for other people. When they break them, it’s because they’re pursuing loftier goals, like public safety. When normal people do it, they’re just criminals. And because they’re criminals, every violation should be handled harshly. When cops do it, everyone is just expected to shrug it off as the cost of doing public safety business.
But we shouldn’t accept this, not even in limited quantities. And the cities and states that have passed these bans need to be right on top of this, demanding accountability and transparency from the law enforcement agencies they oversee. If they’re assuming cops won’t break laws they don’t like, they’re stupider than the cops they’re overseeing and twice as stupid as cops think their overseers are. If you can’t keep this from happening, why even bother passing laws?
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/to-the-surprise-of-absolutely-no-one-cops-under-facial-recognition-bans-are-asking-other-agencies-to-run-searches-for-them/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">441276</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Daily Deal: StackSkills Unlimited</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/daily-deal-stackskills-unlimited-19/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/daily-deal-stackskills-unlimited-19/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gretchen Heckmann]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 18:01:12 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[daily deal]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=441324&preview=true&preview_id=441324</guid>
<description><![CDATA[StackSkills is the premier online learning platform for mastering today’s most in-demand skills. Now, with this exclusive limited-time offer, you’ll gain access to 1000+ StackSkills courses for life! Whether you’re looking to earn a promotion, make a career change, or pick up a side hustle to make some extra cash, StackSkills delivers engaging online courses […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.stacksocial.com/sales/lifetime-access-to-stackskills-unlimited?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown">StackSkills</a> is the premier online learning platform for mastering today’s most in-demand skills. Now, with this exclusive limited-time offer, you’ll gain access to 1000+ StackSkills courses for life! Whether you’re looking to earn a promotion, make a career change, or pick up a side hustle to make some extra cash, StackSkills delivers engaging online courses featuring the skills that matter most today, both personally and professionally. It’s on sale for $50.
<div class="wp-block-image is-style-default">
<figure class="aligncenter size-large"><a href="https://www.stacksocial.com/sales/lifetime-access-to-stackskills-unlimited?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown"><img decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/cdnp2.stackassets.com/24de609ef9ae792c968cacace126b60a57199ccb/store/b7393d6970482e9b2e97b6e7c05f0f912323377cf8e96a9925f9f345a8ef/product_27377_product_shots1.jpg?ssl=1" alt="" data-recalc-dims="1"/></a></figure>
</div>
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/daily-deal-stackskills-unlimited-19/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">441324</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Vindictive Nonsense: Tesla Threatens To Fire Law Firm Over Expert’s Amicus Brief</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/vindictive-nonsense-tesla-threatens-to-fire-law-firm-over-experts-amicus-brief/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/vindictive-nonsense-tesla-threatens-to-fire-law-firm-over-experts-amicus-brief/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 16:28:12 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[holland & knight]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[tesla]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[amicus brief]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[charles elson]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[compensation]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[delaware court of chancery]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[elon musk]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[threats]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=441067</guid>
<description><![CDATA[It’s no secret that Elon Musk can be petty and vindictive over the dumbest shit. You may have heard that he fired the entire Supercharger team a few weeks ago entirely due to him getting upset at what the woman who led that team told him (he’s now scrambling to try to rehire the team […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It’s no secret that Elon Musk can be petty and vindictive over the <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/15/elons-commitment-to-free-speech-rapidly-replaced-by-his-commitment-to-blatant-hypocrisy-bans-the-joinmastodon-account/">dumbest shit</a>. You may have heard that he fired the entire Supercharger team a few weeks ago entirely due to him <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-woman-fired-her-entire-department">getting upset at what the woman</a> who led that team told him (he’s now <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-rehiring-supercharger-people">scrambling to try to rehire</a> the team he fired — another thing that’s <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/elon-musk-twitter-rehire-fired-employees-soros-magneto-1235615023/">happened before</a>).
Sometimes it gets even sillier. You may recall a couple of years ago when Tesla <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/15/tesla-asked-cooley-to-fire-lawyer-who-worked-on-sec-elon-musk-probe.html">demanded that law firm Cooley LLP fire a lawyer</a> who happened to have worked at the SEC back when Elon was fined for tweeting about his supposed plans to take the company private.
Pressuring law firms is apparently becoming a pattern.
Charles Elson, a retired Finance Professor at the University of Delaware, is a well-recognized authority on corporate governance issues. And it seems that Elon is terrified he might give his opinions to the Delaware Court of Chancery that is handling his compensation lawsuit.
In the past, I’ve explained how this whole lawsuit doesn’t make that much sense to me. It’s one case where I think Elon’s argument <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/05/i-remain-confused-by-the-ruling-on-elon-musks-compensation-package/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">is actually entirely plausible</a>. I wouldn’t vote in favor of his $55 billion pay package, but I can see why some people might not find it problematic. But, it seems that Elon is really, really scared about losing that payday. Hell, Tesla, which is <a href="https://www.basicthinking.com/this-is-why-tesla-does-not-spend-money-on-classic-advertising/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">famous for not advertising anything</a>, is <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/tesla-is-going-all-out-to-push-elon-musks-55-billion-pay-package-through-even-spending-money-on-ads/articleshow/110157438.cms" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">advertising to shareholders</a> to tell them to vote to reinstate Elon’s pay package.
Still, even if I find the lawsuit a bit perplexing, it seems that Musk wants to handicap the opposition.
Elson <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24663728/2024-05-13-as-filed-motion-for-leave-to-participate-as-amicus-curiae-w-cos.pdf">filed one hell of a motion</a>, asking for leave to file his expected amicus brief, noting that the Musk Team started playing hardball to try to force him not to file.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Professor Elson, a leading authority on corporate law, moves for leave to submit a second proposed amicus curiae brief in this action. Professor Elson previously submitted an amicus brief concerning the development and goals of equity-linked executive compensation during the post-trial briefing stage of this action, which the Court found “persuasive.” Professor Elson now writes to provide the Court with additional context and analysis in connection with the Tesla Board’s unprecedented attempt to seek a post-trial stockholder vote to ratify the Award.
</blockquote>
Additional context, you say? What sort of context? Perhaps some of it has to do with how badly Elon doesn’t want Elson to say anything.
It’s pretty typical for parties to consent to amicus briefs being filed as a matter of course. Even if they know the briefs will challenge or disagree with their arguments. It’s just professional courtesy, and courts expect it. Opposing efforts to file an amicus brief can raise eyebrows. And Tesla went all in trying to block Elson:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Plaintiff consents to this motion. Defendants do not and Musk was willing to go to extraordinary—and appalling—lengths to prevent this Court from reading the Brief.
Early Friday morning, Professor Elson’s counsel emailed a copy of the Brief to counsel for the parties, asking whether they would consent to a motion for leave to file it. Plaintiff’s counsel responded that they did not oppose its submission. Tesla’s counsel from DLA Piper telephoned Professor Elson’s counsel to assert, without further explanation, that Professor Elson “may have a conflict” and asked counsel to hold off on filing the brief.
Soon after, Professor Elson received an email from Holland & Knight LLP, a law firm with which Professor Elson had a consulting relationship. Holland & Knight informed Professor Elson that the firm represents Tesla in certain unrelated matters and that Tesla had threatened to fire Holland & Knight if Professor Elson submitted this amicus brief.
The assertion that Professor Elson was conflicted is risible—which is presumably why Tesla’s then-counsel raised no objection when Professor Elson submitted his prior amicus brief in this matter. The rules of professional conduct prevent a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client. None of those elements was present here:
<ul>
<li>Professor Elson is neither acting as a lawyer nor representing a client in this action; he is represented by counsel and seeks leave to file a brief as an amicus.</li>
<li>Nor was Professor Elson acting as a lawyer at Holland & Knight; the rules of professional conduct do not impute conflicts from a consultant to a law firm or from a law firm to a consultant.</li>
<li>Nor is Professor Elson acting adversely to Tesla; his brief is defending a multi-billion-dollar judgment in Tesla’s favor.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
I mean, all of this is incredible. The threat. The weak ass claims of a “conflict.” But, most of all, the very fact (as Elson points out) that his argument is actually in support of Tesla which benefits by not having to give out this massive pay package if Elon loses.
To avoid having his professional associates suffer because of Elon’s petty vindictiveness, Elson chose to resign from Holland & Knight, “ending a relationship of nearly thirty years.”
This is doubly ridiculous given all of the conflicts that Elon has between his various companies, and the fact that he’s been claiming that he “deserves” this $55 billion pay package for all his hard work. Does Elson not then deserve to continue his relationship with H&K for all of his work? Of course not. The primary motive of everything Elon is “what benefits Elon?”
And, of course, the whole thing acts as a kind of Streisand Effect highlighting the key point that Elson was trying to raise. Tesla and Elon’s interests are averse here, yet the company is acting as if they’re aligned, which at least gives pretty strong credence to the idea (at the heart of the lawsuit) that the board is focused on helping Musk, rather than looking out for Tesla’s best interests.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
The Court should have no illusions about what happened here. The frivolous assertion of a conflict was a fig leaf for Musk, acting through Tesla, to try to bully a law professor by making a serious economic threat to a law firm with which the professor had a consulting relationship. This is not the first time that Tesla has threatened to fire a law firm for employing someone who annoyed Elon Musk by doing his job. That it did so again here only emphasizes the correctness of the Court’s conclusion that Musk controls Tesla
</blockquote>
And, of course, it’s giving everyone yet another glimpse into the ways in which Musk will let any slight turn him into a vindictive asshole. 
Meanwhile, at the very end of the week, Tesla <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2024/05/tesla-admits-to-bullying-outside-counsel-but-prefers-we-not-call-it-bullying/">filed with the court</a> to “reject the amicus’s motion that it is ‘appalling’ or ‘bullying…” but still admitting that they did, in fact, everything that Elson said, though they claim they were just raising “a potential conflict issue.”
Um. No. Again, Elson’s brief was on behalf of Tesla suggesting that they shouldn’t have to pay Musk his huge compensation. If there’s any “potential conflict issue” here, it seems to be on the lawyers ostensibly representing “Tesla” but instead advocating for something that would harm Tesla, while benefiting Elon Musk.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/vindictive-nonsense-tesla-threatens-to-fire-law-firm-over-experts-amicus-brief/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">441067</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Pennsylvania Once Again Shows What Broadband Corruption Looks Like: Doles Out Millions In Dodgy, Non-Transparent Grants To Comcast, Verizon In Favored Political Districts</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/pennsylvania-once-again-shows-what-broadband-corruption-looks-like-doles-out-millions-in-dodgy-non-transparent-grants-to-comcast-verizon-in-favored-political-districts/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/pennsylvania-once-again-shows-what-broadband-corruption-looks-like-doles-out-millions-in-dodgy-non-transparent-grants-to-comcast-verizon-in-favored-political-districts/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karl Bode]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 12:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[broadband]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[corruption]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[fiber]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[grants]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[high speed internet]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[josh shapiro]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[subsidies]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[telecom]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=438367&preview=true&preview_id=438367</guid>
<description><![CDATA[By now we’ve laid out the case that U.S. broadband is spotty, expensive, and slow due to regional monopolies and the corruption that protects them. Despite this, every time the U.S. decides to spend taxpayer money on broadband, said corruption usually ensures that we throw most of that money into the laps of the same […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[By now we’ve laid out the case that U.S. broadband is spotty, expensive, and slow due to regional monopolies and the corruption that protects them. Despite this, every time the U.S. decides to spend taxpayer money on broadband, said corruption usually ensures that we throw most of that money into the laps of the same giant companies responsible for our broadband woes to begin with.
America loves dumping billions of dollars into the accounts of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, or other giants in exchange for <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=AT%26T+layoffs+techdirt+tax+cuts&sca_esv=bbbf2f4e60da03cb&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS909US909&sxsrf=ADLYWIKtDjalMv8voY8_98iwkM2EQ-_VxA%3A1715703889125&ei=UZBDZpubB9au0PEPufKa0As&ved=0ahUKEwjbh-eGx42GAxVWFzQIHTm5BroQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=AT%26T+layoffs+techdirt+tax+cuts&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHkFUJlQgbGF5b2ZmcyB0ZWNoZGlydCB0YXggY3V0czIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSO0pUJ8hWPAocAF4AJABAJgBnQGgAcUGqgEDOS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIKoAKjBsICDhAAGIAEGLADGIYDGIoFwgILEAAYsAMYogQYiQXCAgsQABiABBiwAxiiBJgDAIgGAZAGBJIHAzkuMaAHvyc&sclient=gws-wiz-serp">layoffs</a> and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2017/03/14/new-york-city-sues-verizon-fiber-optic-bait-switch/">half-deployed networks</a>. Companies that have lobbied for decades to crush all competition and defang regulators to ensure U.S. broadband remains as expensive and spotty as possible get billions of dollars to do very little (<a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/10/att-took-283-million-but-didnt-deploy-required-broadband-mississippi-says/">or nothing</a>). It’s utterly pathological and it never changes.
Case in point: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro <a href="https://www.broadband.pa.gov/shapiro-administration-invests-204-million-in-federal-funding-to-provide-40000-homes-and-businesses-affordable-and-reliable-high-speed-internet-across/">recently announced</a> that the state would be doling out $204 Million to deliver broadband to 100,000 Pennsylvanians in 42 counties. Officials insist that project applications were evaluated based on “experience and ability of the applicant to successfully deploy high-speed broadband service,” and “affordability standards that include a low-cost option.”
The problem: nearly all the money was simply dropped into the laps of Comcast and Verizon, the latter of which has an extremely long history of ripping off Pennsylvania telecom subsidy programs in exchange for networks that are routinely not fully delivered. Verizon was at the heart of a major scandal <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2013/10/17/decades-failed-promises-verizon-it-promises-fiber-to-get-tax-breaks-then-never-delivers/">on this front in the 90s</a>, and again in the 2000s when accused of <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2017/06/15/verizon-gets-wrist-slap-years-neglecting-broadband-networks-new-jersey-pennsylvania/">neglecting its aging DSL networks</a>.
Another problem: smaller ISPs, cooperatives, and community broadband networks (which have a solid track record of deploying more affordable access) were ignored entirely. Penn State Telecommunications Professor Sascha Meinrath tells me that community broadband ISPs and nonprofits that promised to deploy faster broadband at much lower costs <a href="https://communitynets.org/content/pennsylvania-snubs-community-broadband-small-isps-latest-broadband-grant-round">were completely snubbed</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“I’ve now talked to multiple ISPs that offered a faster, cheaper service but got turned down,” he said. “And I’m like, so wait a second…what criteria were they using to decide on these two companies? There’s just a real lack of clarity as to what’s transpired here, frankly.”
</blockquote>
Worse, Meinrath notes that the state politicians in charge of the organization in charge of determining who won awards (the Pennsylvania Broadband Development Authority (PBDA)) conveniently wound up <a href="https://communitynets.org/content/pennsylvania-snubs-community-broadband-small-isps-latest-broadband-grant-round">driving most of the awards to their own districts</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“All four of the board members — like Republican Senator Gene Yaw — have projects in their own very small districts, which statistically speaking is an incredible occurrence, because only one tenth to one twentieth of the state is covered by these grants.”
</blockquote>
There are questions about how any of this is even legal. In several of the grant applications the state appears to have twisted itself in knots to approve funding for Comcast and Verizon — in key political districts — without bothering to offer the slightest transparency into how the state made determinations.
Pennsylvania is also one of <a href="https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks#:~:text=17%20states%20currently%20have%20laws,operating%20municipal%20networks%20more%20difficult.">17 states</a> where telecoms like Comcast lobbied for what’s effectively a state ban on community-owned broadband networks, despite the fact such networks routinely help drive affordable access — and competition — to broken broadband markets. 
In PA policy conversations, Meinrath notes that the PA government likes to pretend that this law doesn’t exist, despite the <a href="https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=66">section in question</a> being literally titled “prohibition against political subdivision broadband services deployment.” The entire state policy apparatus is custom built to make it difficult to challenge monopolies — while simultaneously denying that this is happening:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“They [giant private providers] have a right at first refusal for muni networks, but also for public private partnerships, which again, this is not even acknowledged by the state,” Meinrath said. “You can imagine if there is a law that is on the books – Title 66, paragraph 3014, subpart H – but declared to not exist, officially – it makes it very awkward.”
</blockquote>
This is all par for the course. Politicians from both parties will wax poetic endlessly about the need to “<a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2021/04/05/us-press-continues-to-pretend-digital-divide-just-mysteriously-appeared-one-day/">bridge the digital divide</a>.” But even the best intentioned are too politically timid to acknowledge that monopolization and competition problems exist, much less propose solutions. 
So when pressured to “fix the problem,” their solution is almost always to throw a bunch of money into the laps of politically powerful telecom monopolies responsible for much of the problem in the first place. Companies that are, as extensions of our domestic surveillance systems, now well beyond the reach of coherent reason, accountability, or the law. 
There are billions more in broadband subsidies headed to the states via the <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/16/telecoms-to-get-45-billion-in-taxpayer-broadband-subsidies-but-are-whining-because-they-might-have-to-deliver-affordable-broadband-to-a-few-poor-people/">$42 billion in broadband subsidies included in the infrastructure bill</a>. But unlike Pennsylvania’s recent grant awards, the federal process will actually involve something genuinely resembling transparency, hopefully giving small businesses, cooperatives, and community owned broadband networks a better shot.
Still, telecom monopolies like Comcast and Verizon are there too, working overtime to ensure they not only hoover up the lion’s share of the funding, but don’t face any sort of “onerous” requirements, like having to <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/16/telecoms-to-get-45-billion-in-taxpayer-broadband-subsidies-but-are-whining-because-they-might-have-to-deliver-affordable-broadband-to-a-few-poor-people/">actually deliver uniform, affordable broadband access to poor people</a>.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/20/pennsylvania-once-again-shows-what-broadband-corruption-looks-like-doles-out-millions-in-dodgy-non-transparent-grants-to-comcast-verizon-in-favored-political-districts/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">438367</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/19/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-110/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/19/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-110/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Leigh Beadon]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2024 19:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=441257&preview=true&preview_id=441257</guid>
<description><![CDATA[This week, both our winners on the insightful side come from our post about a facts-free op-ed defending the bipartisan bill to repeal Section 230. In first place, it’s Stephen T. Stone reiterating a rule that holds true: Once more, with feeling: No one can oppose Section 230 without lying about it. In second place, […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[This week, both our winners on the insightful side come from our post about a facts-free op-ed defending the bipartisan bill to repeal Section 230. In first place, it’s <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/user/regularstone/">Stephen T. Stone</a> reiterating <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/13/bipartisan-bill-to-repeal-section-230-defended-in-facts-optional-op-ed/#comment-3756008">a rule that holds true</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Once more, with feeling:
No one can oppose Section 230 without lying about it.
</blockquote>
In second place, it’s <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/user/strawb/">Strawb</a> with a reply to the claim that <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/13/bipartisan-bill-to-repeal-section-230-defended-in-facts-optional-op-ed/#comment-3756101">Section 230 allows “blatant viewpoint discrimination”:</a>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
No, that’s the First Amendment. But keep telling Mike how he “doesn’t understand the law”.
</blockquote>
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Dan B about <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/14/former-fcc-chair-pai-stumbles-over-first-amendment-and-text-of-the-law-in-supporting-tiktok-ban/#comment-3758913">Ajit Pai supporting the TikTok ban</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
What makes this weird, to me, is that this isn’t even good politics for him.
Trump is (currently) against the ban, as are a plurality of independent voters. On top of that, there are solid, non-crazy legal arguments that the ban is unconstitutional. So this would have been an opportunity for Pai to simultaneously suck up to Trump, help the Republicans’ chances in 2024, and… do the right thing.
</blockquote>
Next, it’s Drew Wilson with a comment about <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/16/another-billionaire-pushes-a-bid-for-tiktok-but-to-decentralize-it/#comment-3765076">the potential (or not-so-potential) sale of TikTok</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
I’m with Mike on this. The likelihood TikTok getting sold is very low at this point. TikTok made it very clear that they aren’t selling. They have their litigation effort (along with creator litigation next to them) fully ahead of them at this point. It makes WAY more sense that both TikTok and the creators that use the platform to focus on the lawsuits they filed. If it’s looking unlikely that the lawsuit is going to win and they change their mind on selling afterwards, then we’ll talk, but that’s a LONG way down the road and, what’s more, that’s a very big “if”.
</blockquote>
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous comment from last week’s winners post, responding to the winning insightful comment from that week, which was itself a reply to a comment throwing around some legal nonsense and included the line <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/12/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-109/#comment-3753909">“the irony is that your hallucinated ‘facts’ are more offensive than ChatGPT’s”</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Hey, good news. Humans are still better at hallucinating than AI. Who’da thunk it.
</blockquote>
In second place, it’s <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/user/wfrichar/">Boba Fatt</a> with a comment about <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/14/when-lol-no-is-not-enough-lawyer-explains-why-bogus-takedown-over-fuck-the-lapd-shirt-should-result-in-paying-legal-fees/#comment-3759312">the bogus takedowns of “Fuck the LAPD” shirts</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
I predict a new T-shirt design
now with “and the LAPDF, too”
</blockquote>
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from i havent had coffee yet confessing <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/15/streaming-sector-continues-its-steady-transformation-into-boring-old-cable-tv/#comment-3761208">a misreading of the headline on our post about “the streaming sector”</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
I first read the title as “Screaming Sector Continues Its…” and assumed it was about maga/conservatives.
</blockquote>
Finally, it’s an anonymous comment about <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/15/gun-detection-tech-co-this-wont-work-in-subways-nyc-mayor-were-putting-it-in-the-subways/#comment-3761928">the latest nonsense from the mayor of New York City</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Someone should just switch Eric Adams with Eric André one night just to see what happens.
</blockquote>
That’s all for this week, folks!
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/19/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-110/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">441257</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>This Week In Techdirt History: May 12th – 18th</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/18/this-week-in-techdirt-history-may-12th-18th/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/18/this-week-in-techdirt-history-may-12th-18th/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Leigh Beadon]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2024 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[look back]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=441234&preview=true&preview_id=441234</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Five Years Ago This week in 2019, the government hit whistleblower David Hale with espionage charges. All four major wireless carriers were hit with lawsuits over sharing location data, while employees of AT&T and Verizon were caught up in a DOJ bust over SIM hijacking. Canada’s Prime Minister was threatening to fine social media companies […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Five Years Ago
This week in 2019, the government <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/05/13/us-government-rings-up-another-whistleblower-espionage-charges/">hit whistleblower David Hale with espionage charges</a>. All four major wireless carriers were <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/05/13/all-four-major-wireless-carriers-hit-with-lawsuits-over-sharing-selling-location-data/">hit with lawsuits over sharing location data</a>, while employees of AT&T and Verizon were <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/05/14/att-verizon-employees-caught-up-doj-sim-hijacking-bust/">caught up in a DOJ bust over SIM hijacking</a>. Canada’s Prime Minister was <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/05/17/now-prime-minister-canada-is-threatening-to-fine-social-media-companies-over-fake-news/">threatening to fine social media companies over fake news</a>, while a Canadian committee published <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/05/17/canadian-committee-publishes-ludicrous-fantasy-pretending-to-be-copyright-reform-analysis/">a ludicrous fantasy pretending to be a copyright reform analysis</a>. And, in perhaps the most notable news for us this week, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/05/17/our-legal-dispute-with-shiva-ayyadurai-is-now-over/">we announced the conclusion of our legal dispute with Shiva Ayyadurai</a>.
Ten Years Ago
This week in 2014, AT&T was warning of a parade of horribles that would supposedly happen <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2014/05/12/att-warns-fcc-parade-horribles-that-wouldnt-actually-happen-if-fcc-reclassifies-broadband/">if the FCC reclassified broadband</a>, the cable industry was lying about having <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2014/05/13/cable-industry-lies-through-its-teeth-falsely-claims-greater-broadband-investment-support-net-neutrality/">invested in broadband and supported net neutrality</a> (since the industry’s own numbers showed <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2014/05/14/cable-industrys-own-numbers-show-general-decline-investment-over-past-seven-years/">a general decline in investment over the years</a>), and Tom Wheeler was <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2014/05/12/tom-wheeler-revising-his-net-neutrality-plans-not-actually-fixing-them/">revising his net neutrality plans</a> before <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2014/05/15/lobbyists-oh-yes-everyone-else-start-your-engines-fcc-opens-floor-comments-net-neutrality/">opening the floor to comments</a>. Then, an initial vote on new open internet rules was <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2014/05/16/ny-times-washington-post-describe-yesterdays-net-neutrality-vote-diametrically-opposite-ways/">reported in drastically different ways in different publications</a>. We also wrote about why <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2014/05/13/why-making-apis-copyrightable-is-bad-news-innovation/">making APIs copyrightable is bad news for innovation</a>, while Automattic announced that <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2014/05/14/automattic-wordpress-states-explicitly-that-it-wont-claim-copyright-over-its-apis/">it wouldn’t claim copyright over its APIs</a>.
Fifteen Years Ago
This week in 2009, there was <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2009/05/11/have-at-you-clip-art-pirates/">a tidal wave of lawsuits over pirated clip-art</a>, while we continued writing about how <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2009/05/11/everyone-assumes-copyright-only-applies-when-they-like-it/">people make a lot of bad assumptions about copyright</a> and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2009/05/12/how-long-can-you-go-without-infringing-on-copyright/">it’s almost impossible to live your life without infringing</a>. The BSA released <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2009/05/13/bsa-releases-bs-numbers-yet-again-then-says-dont-pay-attention-to-the-numbers/">more bogus piracy numbers</a>, the CEO of Sony Pictures was <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2009/05/15/sony-pictures-ceo-nothing-good-has-come-from-the-internet/">complaining about the internet</a>, and Francea <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2009/05/12/france-strikes-out-approves-cutting-people-off-the-internet/">approved a three-strikes law</a>. Meanwhile, Craigslist gave in to constant attacks by Attorneys General and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2009/05/13/craigslist-gives-in-to-misplaced-ag-anger-again/">started locking down its “erotic services” category</a>, which (amusingly) <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2009/05/13/andrew-cuomo-angry-that-craigslist-stole-his-photo-op/">actually annoyed some AGs like Andrew Cuomo</a> and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2009/05/14/looks-like-henry-mcmaster-is-upset-about-his-lost-craigslist-photo-op-as-well/">Henry McMaster</a>, because Craigslist just did it without giving them the photo op and fawning press coverage they hoped for.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/18/this-week-in-techdirt-history-may-12th-18th/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">441234</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>NetEase Backs Down On Requirement For Early Streamers Of ‘Marvel’ Game To Not Critique The Game</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/netease-backs-down-on-requirement-for-early-streamers-of-marvel-game-to-not-critique-the-game/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/netease-backs-down-on-requirement-for-early-streamers-of-marvel-game-to-not-critique-the-game/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dark Helmet]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2024 02:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[netease]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[criticism]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[non-disparagement]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[non-disparagement clause]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[reviews]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[video games]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=441034&preview=true&preview_id=441034</guid>
<description><![CDATA[It’s a funny thing what game publishers sometimes try to do when it comes to releasing games early to internet streamers as a way to boost interest in their games. I’ve heard stories of all kinds of crazy stipulations that streamers have to sign off on contractually in order to get access to the game. […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It’s a funny thing what game publishers sometimes try to do when it comes to releasing games early to internet streamers as a way to boost interest in their games. I’ve heard stories of all kinds of crazy stipulations that streamers have to sign off on contractually in order to get access to the game. They can only show certain parts of the game, or they can only play so far into it, or they have guardrails put up around what they can and cannot say about the game they are showing off to the public. What tends to get lost in all of this is that these streamers are essentially an advertising channel to generate more hype about these future games, yet they’re treated like some kind of a threat.
And where this gets really pernicious is when publishers want to both get messaging about their games out in the form of independent streaming personalities, but also want to <a href="https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/05/marvel-rivals-dev-apologizes-for-contract-barring-subjective-negative-reviews/?utm_social-type=owned&utm_brand=ars&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social">control what that message will be</a>. Perhaps one of the most extreme forms that type of thing can take showed up with NetEase, who is developing the upcoming Marvel Rivals game, attempted to contractually prohibit these streamers from saying anything negative about the games.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
The controversial early access contract gained widespread attention over the weekend when streamer Brandon Larned <a href="https://twitter.com/A_Seagull/status/1789468582281400792">shared a portion on social media</a>. In the “non-disparagement” clause shared by Larned, creators who are provided with an early download code are asked not to “make any public statements or engage in discussions that are detrimental to the reputation of the game.” In addition to the “subjective negative review” example above, the clause also specifically prohibits “making disparaging or satirical comments about any game-related material” and “engaging in malicious comparisons with competitors or belittling the gameplay or differences of Marvel Rivals.”
</blockquote>
It should be obvious to anyone why this is a problem and why there’s no way this wasn’t going to become public. The contract, as written, essentially asked these streaming personalities, who have only their reputations with their fans to go on, to not just let the company tread on their own editorial credibility, but to actually mandate the full torpedoing of that credibility. Anyone who agreed to this, or other contracts like it, are almost purely shills.
After this all went public, NetEase unsurprisingly apologized and promised to make changes on their end.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
In a follow-up <a href="https://twitter.com/MarvelRivals/status/1789895401723822410">posted to social media this morning</a>, NetEase went on to “apologize for any unpleasant experiences or doubts caused by the miscommunication of these terms… We actively encourage Creators to share their honest thoughts, suggestions, and criticisms as they play. All feedback, positive and negative, ultimately helps us craft the best experience for ourselves and the players.” NetEase says it is making “adjustments” to the contract “to be less restrictive and more Creator-friendly.”
</blockquote>
There are always going to be some restrictions in these arrangements. After all, these streamers are getting early access to a game and publishers will certainly want to exert some control over what is messaged and shown and what isn’t. But any attempt to tread upon the editorial integrity of those that are being used as the mouthpieces of hype for these games ought to be a non-starter.
Otherwise, the destruction of trust in those streamers in the public would render them useless, anyhow.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/netease-backs-down-on-requirement-for-early-streamers-of-marvel-game-to-not-critique-the-game/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">441034</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Do You Really Want The Government In Your DMs?</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/ctrl-alt-speech-do-you-really-want-the-government-in-your-dms/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/ctrl-alt-speech-do-you-really-want-the-government-in-your-dms/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Leigh Beadon]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2024 22:15:25 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[instagram]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[meta]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[tiktok]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[youtube]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[content moderation]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[deepfakes]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[digital services act]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[eu]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[india]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[ofcom]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[section 230]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[singapore]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=441197&preview=true&preview_id=441197</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw. Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed. In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://ctrlaltspeech.com/">Ctrl-Alt-Speech</a> is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and <a href="https://www.everythinginmoderation.co/">Everything in Moderation</a>‘s Ben Whitelaw. 
Subscribe now on <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ctrl-alt-speech/id1734530193">Apple Podcasts</a>, <a href="https://overcast.fm/itunes1734530193">Overcast</a>, <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/1N3tvLxUTCR7oTdUgUCQvc">Spotify</a>, <a href="https://pca.st/zulnarbw">Pocket Casts</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcky6_VTbejGkZ7aHqqc3ZjufeEw2AS7Z">YouTube</a>, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to <a href="https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2315966.rss">the RSS feed</a>.
<iframe src="https://www.buzzsprout.com/2315966/15090398-do-you-really-want-the-government-in-your-dms?client_source=small_player&iframe=true" loading="lazy" width="100%" height="200" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title='Ctrl-Alt-Speech, Do You Really Want the Government in Your DMs?'></iframe>
In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2664">Commission opens formal proceedings against Meta under the Digital Services Act related to the protection of minors on Facebook and Instagram</a> (European Commission)</li>
<li><a href="https://content.mlex.com/#/content/1563381/meta-tiktok-other-platforms-told-to-expect-eu-guidelines-soon-on-child-protection-age-verification">Meta, TikTok, other platforms told to expect EU guidelines soon on child protection, age verification</a> (MLex)</li>
<li><a href="https://straitstimes.com/tech/centre-to-help-singapore-fight-online-harms-launched-gets-50m-funding">Got a text that you think is a scam? S’pore’s new centre to fight online harms can help verify it</a> (Straits Times)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/13/bipartisan-bill-to-repeal-section-230-defended-in-facts-optional-op-ed/">Bipartisan Bill To Repeal Section 230 Defended In Facts-Optional Op-Ed</a> (Techdirt)</li>
<li><a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/indian-journalists-turned-youtube-dodge-modis-censorship-some-their-channels-are-now-being">Indian journalists turned to YouTube to dodge Modi’s censorship. Some of their channels are now being blocked</a> (Reuters Institute for Journalism)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/11/she-was-accused-of-faking-an-incriminating-video-of-teenage-cheerleaders-she-was-arrested-outcast-and-condemned-the-problem-nothing-was-fake-after-all">She was accused of faking an incriminating video of teenage cheerleaders. She was arrested, outcast and condemned. The problem? Nothing was fake after all</a> (The Guardian)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.pubaffairsbruxelles.eu/eu-institution-news/commission-services-sign-administrative-arrangement-with-ofcom-to-support-the-enforcement-of-social-media-regulations/">Commission services sign administrative arrangement with Ofcom to support the enforcement of social media regulations</a> (Pub Affairs Bruxelles)</li>
<li><a href="https://restofworld.org/2022/singapore-new-online-safety-laws-censorship/?ref=everythinginmoderation.co">Singapore’s proposed online safety laws look like more censorship in disguise</a> (Rest of World)</li>
</ul>
This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/ctrl-alt-speech-do-you-really-want-the-government-in-your-dms/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">441197</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Court To Cops: If We Can’t See The Drug Dog Do The Thing, We’re Gonna Be Suppressing Some Evidence</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/court-to-cops-if-we-cant-see-the-drug-dog-do-the-thing-were-gonna-be-suppressing-some-evidence/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/court-to-cops-if-we-cant-see-the-drug-dog-do-the-thing-were-gonna-be-suppressing-some-evidence/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Cushing]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2024 20:43:52 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[4th amendment]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[david edmonds]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[drug dogs]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[pretextual stops]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=438415&preview=true&preview_id=438415</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Every cop with a dog swears it can detect all sorts of contraband. Literally swears. In court. On the stand. But are drug dogs miraculous wonders of law enforcement due to their training? Or is it due to the domesticated dog’s innate desire to please, especially when it knows it will be rewarded for doing […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Every cop with a dog swears it can detect all sorts of contraband. Literally swears. In court. On the stand. 
But are drug dogs miraculous wonders of law enforcement due to their training? Or is it due to the domesticated dog’s innate desire to please, especially when it knows it will be rewarded for doing the thing? Or is it simply responding to cues delivered by its handler, some of which may be subconscious?
Well, it’s probably a combination of all these things. Training does get dogs to respond to certain scents. But the training also turns them into an extension of their handler. And then the dog wants what the cop wants: a reason to perform a warrantless search. Both handler and dog are rewarded in their own way. The dog gets a treat. And the cop <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2021/09/13/forfeiture-case-shows-cops-dont-even-need-drug-dogs-to-alert-to-engage-warrantless-search/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2021/09/13/forfeiture-case-shows-cops-dont-even-need-drug-dogs-to-alert-to-engage-warrantless-search/">gets to perform a trick</a> that allows the officer to bypass the Fourth Amendment. (There’s a reason cops <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2017/11/29/drug-dog-testing-process-eliminates-handler-bias-unsurprisingly-cops-dont-like-it/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2017/11/29/drug-dog-testing-process-eliminates-handler-bias-unsurprisingly-cops-dont-like-it/">hate actually scientific testing</a> of officers and drug dogs, because once the pair is separated, tons of false positives and negatives tend to be generated.)
For a long time, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160209/09322733559/drug-dogs-dont-even-have-to-be-right-half-time-to-be-considered-reliable-courts.shtml" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160209/09322733559/drug-dogs-dont-even-have-to-be-right-half-time-to-be-considered-reliable-courts.shtml">courts were mostly receptive</a> to the assertions made by officers handling drug dogs. If they said in court that the dog “alerted,” the court generally couldn’t find a good reason to consider this testimony flawed.
But now there are cameras in cop cars and cameras on cops’ chests and cameras in the phones pretty much every driver and passenger possesses. Consequently, these assertions about “alerting” are <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2016/04/22/court-says-government-needs-more-than-permission-couple-underperforming-drug-dogs-to-justify-seizure-276000/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2016/04/22/court-says-government-needs-more-than-permission-couple-underperforming-drug-dogs-to-justify-seizure-276000/">receiving more scrutiny</a>, as are the dogs themselves, who have shown their ability to reliably detect contraband isn’t all that different than allowing cops to flip a coin to determine whether or not they can pursue a warrantless search.
This case, <a href="https://fourthamendment.com/?p=57727" data-type="link" data-id="https://fourthamendment.com/?p=57727">brought to us by FourthAmendment.com</a>, has a court calling bullshit on a supposed “alert.” A pretextual traffic stop that resulted in the discovery of an illegally possessed weapon relied on a search of a car — a search supposedly prompted by the cop dog on the scene.
The defendant, David Edmonds, was hit with a felony in possession charge following this search. He moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the search of his car wasn’t supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the latter of which is the minimum that officers need to search a vehicle on public roads.
On the way to this warrantless search, the dashcam video submitted as evidence by the government appears to show a bunch of cops breaking traffic laws en route to violating the Fourth Amendment. From the <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24662529/no-good-dog-here.pdf" data-type="link" data-id="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24662529/no-good-dog-here.pdf">decision</a> [PDF]:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
It was daylight. A white sedan traveling on Fifth Street crossed Broadway in front of Trooper Gabriel, proceeding from the trooper’s right to his left. The first unobstructed view of the sedan appears about six seconds into the video. The sedan’s windows are tinted. On the dashcam footage, nothing is visible inside the car. The car is in view for about four seconds before it travels out of the camera’s range.
A pickup truck followed behind the sedan on Fifth Street also traveling in front of Trooper Gabriel. Trooper Gabriel testified at the hearing that the truck was driven by a law enforcement officer. After the truck passed, Trooper Gabriel ran the red light on Broadway and turned left on Fifth Street following the path of the truck and the sedan, cutting off another car going through the intersection. Trooper Gabriel testified on cross-examination that the car he cut off was driven by another law enforcement officer who he had warned by radio.
The area of Fifth Street is a residential area. Trooper Gabriel picked up speed on Fifth Street. He passed a sign stating that the speed limit is 25. He appeared to be traveling well above that. He testified at the hearing that he was traveling about 40-45 miles per hour.
</blockquote>
At this point, there were at least three state troopers, driving three different vehicles in pursuit of a white sedan that had not been observed breaking any traffic laws. Trooper Gabriel, however, had not only run a red light, but was driving 20 mph over the posted speed limit. 
If this was a pursuit, there was no indication of that. There is nothing on the record that indicates sirens or lights had been activated, which meant all the officers involved were endangering other drivers for the sole purpose of catching up to a car whose driver hadn’t actually broken any laws himself. 
The mayhem continued: 
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
The pickup truck traveling behind the sedan pulled over to the side of the road, and Trooper Gabriel passed it. Trooper Gabriel testified on cross examination that the truck was also a law enforcement officer who he had radioed ahead to pull over. At that point, nothing was between the sedan and Trooper Gabriel, who was still speeding down the residential road. As Trooper Gabriel’s vehicle approached closer, the sedan veered slightly to the right toward the curb and stopped on Fifth Street at an intersection with another street. Trooper Gabriel stopped behind the sedan.
</blockquote>
Somehow, every car on the road other than the one this trooper was pursuing was another cop. What a coincidence! I’m surprised the court didn’t demand testimony from all the other alleged “officers” Trooper Gabriel endangered while focused on this white sedan.
Trooper Gabriel followed up his lawbreaking and endangerment of other drivers (some who might have been cops!) by doing whatever the fuck this is:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Trooper Gabriel yelled to the sedan driver to turn the car off. The driver, who was defendant Edmonds, stuck his head slightly out of the driver’s side window, looked back at Trooper Gabriel and apparently asked why he was being asked to turn the car off. Trooper Gabriel stated, “because you just whipped over like crazy.” He again instructed Edmonds to turn the car off. Edmonds apparently again asked why, and Trooper Gabriel responded, “Because I said so.”
About 13 seconds after Trooper Gabriel first instructed Edmonds to turn the car off, Edmonds’ brake lights went off. Trooper Gabriel instructed Edmonds multiple times to get out of the car. About eight seconds after Trooper Gabriel first instructed him to, Edmonds got out of the car. Trooper Gabriel instructed Edmonds to walk toward him. Edmonds complied. Another trooper appears on camera at this point walking toward Edmonds’ car.
</blockquote>
Those quoted paragraphs immediately follow the previous quoted paragraphs. All of this was captured by the trooper’s dashcam. The court: “the sedan veered slightly to the right.” Trooper Gabriel: “You whipped like crazy.” Hmm.
Already off to a bad start, but apparently surrounded by other troopers with nothing better to do but violate traffic laws en route to performing a traffic stop, Trooper Gabriel then proceeded to claim he “caught” Edmonds “with no seat belt” and again reiterated his claim (one not supported by his dashcam footage) that Edmonds has “freakin’ just like dipped over.” Let’s go back to the court’s earlier depiction of the dashcam recording to see what it has to say about Trooper Gabriel’s assertion that he saw the man driving without a seat belt.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
The first unobstructed view of the sedan appears about six seconds into the video. The sedan’s windows are tinted. On the dashcam footage, nothing is visible inside the car. 
</blockquote>
Folks, this man is a liar. He lied about seeing the seat belt (or lack thereof) and he lied about the whipping/dipping he claimed to have witnessed.
Having apparently traveled as far he could on this particular line of bullshit, the trooper began insinuating that the thing HE DEFINITELY HAD NOT WITNESSED were indicative of a nervous driver seeking to avoid a traffic stop and/or cover up their possession of contraband. 
Since the trooper really had nothing to work with here, he decided to bring in a dog to give him the probable cause he couldn’t possibly hope to obtain on his own. Trooper Gabriel took the dog from his vehicle and walked it around Edmond’s car. 
This is what happened:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
The dog, whose name is Dragon, appears to follow Trooper Gabriel’s hand. When Trooper Gabriel places his hand in the open driver’s side window, the dog jumps onto the driver’s side door and sticks his head in the window.
Trooper Gabriel then led Dragon all the way around the vehicle until the trooper and the dog returned to the driver’s side door again. At the driver’s side door, Trooper Gabriel told Dragon, “I’m not going to give you your ball . . . You’re going to have to . . . .” Trooper Gabriel then walked back to the state police vehicle, with Dragon leading the way. Trooper Gabriel returned to Edmonds and explained that Dragon does “a passive alert on a vehicle.” Trooper Gabriel stated, “That means he will either sit, or stare, or freeze if he has an indication that there is an odor of narcotics in the vehicle.” Trooper Gabriel stated that Dragon is “right on your driver’s side door handle.”
Edmonds stated, “I didn’t see him do nothing. . . what do they do?” Trooper Gabriel responded, “I just told you.”
</blockquote>
Oh, so it’s a new type of alert: the one where the dog doesn’t do much, even when encouraged to do something, anything by its handler. My dog smelled drugs, said the lying state trooper.
Here’s what actually happened: 
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
The officers then searched Edmonds’ car. They found no narcotics…
</blockquote>
But they found a gun! And Edmonds was not allowed to have one. The trooper lucked into this discovery by lying about what he had observed prior to the stop, and what the dog had actually done when it performed its sniff.
As for all the whipping and dipping, this is what the court observed thanks to the dashcam footage supplied by the government: 
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
As to his driving, Edmonds’ pulling off to the side of the road seemed a rational response for a driver when a marked law enforcement vehicle is approaching the driver’s vehicle from the rear at a high rate of speed in a residential area, and the vehicle behind the driver has already pulled to the side of the road so that the law enforcement officer could pass him. And, on the dashcam footage, Edmonds appeared to pull over to the side of the road in a reasonable manner…
</blockquote>
The government’s response to the suppression motion claimed Trooper Gabriel was “concerned” about Edmonds’ “driving pattern.” Then it claimed the stop was supported by Gabriel’s claim he witnessed Edmonds driving without a seat belt.
Fine, says the court. Have it your way. If the driving wasn’t unlawful, let’s make this all about a seat belt violation. The court goes on to criticize everything about the government’s arguments, as well as everything about the trooper’s actions. And that includes the dog that supposedly gave him permission for a warrantless search of the car.
It first notes that no real traffic stop was performed. Edmonds was not pulled over. Trooper Gabriel never activated his lights or siren. Instead, he just started yelling at Edmonds after he had voluntarily stopped and then began the string of rights violations by ordering him to turn off his car and exit his vehicle.
Even then, it was all bullshit. The court notes that Trooper Gabriel maintained the seal belt violation pretense until redirect under cross examination by Edmonds’ lawyer. At that point, he admitted he had seen the car pass through a “high narcotics” area he was surveilling. Everything was pretext and the trooper obviously hoped to net a drug bust. 
Which would explain why he brought out the dog and pretended it had alerted to the scent of narcotics. The court has some things to say about the performance of “Dragon” and the even less-believable performance of Trooper Gabriel.
Going back to what Trooper Gabriel told Edmonds about the supposed alert before he began his constitutional search:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Trooper Gabriel returned to Edmonds and explained that Dragon does “a passive alert on a vehicle.” Trooper Gabriel stated, “That means he will either sit, or stare, or freeze if he has an indication that there is an odor of narcotics in the vehicle.” 
</blockquote>
The trooper either lied to Edmonds or lied to the court. Actually, it’s not an “either” situation. He lied to both parties. Here’s what happened when the trooper was subjected to cross-examination while testifying: 
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
At the hearing, Trooper Gabriel conceded that Dragon did not sit, stare, or freeze while sniffing Edmonds’ car. He testified, however, that is not actually how Dragon alerts. Instead, Trooper Gabriel testified, the dog alerts by changing his posture and increasing his respiration. He testified the dog’s actions of sitting, staring, or freezing are not an “alert” but rather a “final indication.”
</blockquote>
lolwut 
The dog alerts by breathing or moving, if it isn’t alerting by sitting, staring, or [re-reads testimony] not moving. 
The court isn’t having this. If the court gave this testimony credence, the fact that the dog was present on the scene of any traffic stop and did literally anything (including sitting passively in the trooper’s cruiser), it would be “alerting,” thus “justifying” a warrantless search.
Rather than give this ridiculous cop more leash than he gives his dog, the court shuts this all down, referring to nothing more than the evidence submitted by the government in support (lol!) of this search and arrest. 
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
The Court has viewed the dashcam and bodycam footage numerous times. The Court can discern no difference in the dog’s posture or respiration when he arrives at the driver’s side of the car for the second time, which is when he allegedly alerted. There is no visible change in his rate of respiration. Throughout the sniff of the car, Dragon followed Trooper Gabriel’s hand. He does not ever attempt to walk past Trooper Gabriel. When Trooper Gabriel moves, Dragon follows. When Trooper Gabriel stops, Dragon stops. This is Dragon’s conduct throughout the dog sniff. The only time Dragon walked ahead of Trooper Gabriel was when Dragon walked to the curb after first being released from his crate and then after Dragon completed the drug sniff and headed back to the state trooper vehicle.
</blockquote>
The evidence is suppressed. The search was unjustified. Trooper Gabriel is a liar.
The strange thing is the government felt this was worth pursuing in court. Its actions exposed the trooper’s unconstitutional behavior, which began before the traffic stop (that wasn’t even a real traffic stop) was initiated (by the sedan’s driver, rather than the officer). The government had access to the dashcam footage and somehow decided it could get this suppression motion rejected. 
That’s the saddest thing of all. When Trooper Gabriel’s employers should have been putting together paperwork to get him drummed out the law enforcement business, it was instead putting its efforts behind an effort that embarrassed everyone involved, including the dog that wanted nothing more than make sure Trooper Gabriel approved of its performance. 
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/court-to-cops-if-we-cant-see-the-drug-dog-do-the-thing-were-gonna-be-suppressing-some-evidence/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>76</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">438415</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>When Humanity Gets Messy, Sometimes the Best Tech Solution Is To Do Nothing</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/when-humanity-gets-messy-sometimes-the-best-tech-solution-is-to-do-nothing/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/when-humanity-gets-messy-sometimes-the-best-tech-solution-is-to-do-nothing/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2024 19:13:01 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[dublin]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[new york city]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[portal]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=441098</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Give people ways to share images and videos with each other, and people will quickly push the limits. It’s what people do. There’s been a slightly amusing story making the rounds these past few days: a digital “video portal” was set up to allow people in New York and Dublin to communicate with each other. […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Give people ways to share images and videos with each other, and people will quickly push the limits. It’s what people do.
There’s been a slightly amusing story making the rounds these past few days: a digital “video portal” was set up to allow people in New York and Dublin to communicate with each other. And people… <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/dublin/2024/05/14/dublin-new-york-portal-to-close-until-later-this-week-after-bid-to-blur-lewd-images-fails/">did exactly what you’d expect</a> some people to do when given a spot to, um, express themselves:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
However, it has also attracted a lot of unwanted attention. Some people on the Dublin side have been putting up pornographic images to the camera while one person posted video footage of the Twin Towers on fire during 9/11.
The problems have not been confined to the Dublin side. An OnlyFans model showed her breasts to onlookers in Dublin and then posted it on TikTok and Instagram. The New York portal was closed down for a time as a result.
</blockquote>
The portal has now been closed so officials can “figure out” what to do about the fact that, sometimes, people will do wacky, crazy, or awful things if given a platform to do them.
I tend to side with Katie Notopoulos, whose take is to suck it up and <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/portal-new-york-dublin-nyc-livestream-video-closed-reopen-2024-5">open the portal back up</a> and just revel in human absurdities.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
This is terrible. The portal should reopen! In fact, we should have portals all over the country, all over the world — connecting two random places. We should have a portal between Miami and Tokyo, Florence and Dubai, Delhi and Stockholm. Currently, there’s a portal between cities in Lithuania and Poland, but let’s dream even bigger.
</blockquote>
As she notes, at a time when people think tech is just awful, this was just fun, even if some people were perhaps less than elegant in how they used the portal.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
But the portal is a case of technology that’s just pure joy.
It’s simple, there’s nothing too deep to think about. It’s not even “new” tech — video streaming between two locations is not exactly novel, although I suppose “it’s really big” differentiates it from, say, FaceTime. The situation is what makes it different — video chatting technology is usually personal, used at home or in your office conference room. Putting it in a public space, with other strangers — that makes it fun and special.
It is pure and human to be curious about strangers in another country, to be excited about the idea of seeing someone else across the screen, knowing they can see you, too. It’s fun. It’s delightful.
</blockquote>
I mean, the story does remind me of the simple fact that if you allow people to communicate, you have to consider that some of them are going to do disturbing and awful things. And anyone managing a system that lets people communicate needs to at least consider what to do about that.
The weirdest part of this story is that it appears the people who set up the portal didn’t consider this or think about how they were going to handle these kinds of scenarios. It’s amazing that they seem to have been taken by surprise by all of this.
But sometimes (perhaps even most of the time), the answer on how you deal with the messiness of humanity communicating can simply be: nothing. Do nothing. Recognize that sometimes people are going to be people, and get on with your life.
Sure, there may be the occasional offensive image or inappropriate behavior. But that’s life. People can be weird, wild, and sometimes downright unpleasant. However, the vast majority of interactions are likely to be positive, fun, and enriching. Connecting with strangers across the globe, even briefly, can expand our horizons and remind us of our shared humanity. So let’s embrace the chaos, the silliness, and the serendipity. Open the portals and let people be people.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/17/when-humanity-gets-messy-sometimes-the-best-tech-solution-is-to-do-nothing/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">441098</post-id> </item>
</channel>
</rss>

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

<a href="http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//www.techdirt.com/techdirt_rss.xml"><img src="valid-rss-rogers.png" alt="[Valid RSS]" title="Validate my RSS feed" /></a>

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//www.techdirt.com/techdirt_rss.xml

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms