"It's justice. It's law. It's the vibe"
- quote from the most Australian movie ever made, "The Castle"
In unrelated news, the Turnbull government has legislated a solution to the 'Pi problem'. A spokesman said, "Despite the hysterical declarations that 'its irrational', we've today passed historic legislation to require Pi to be less difficult to write down. Today we make it clear that Pi is required to follow the laws of the commonwealth rather than the laws of mathematics;
112+ comments on this one. It's comforting to know that even Techdirters (myself included) can enjoy a little bit of guilty click-bait pleasure
This exactly.
Despite the story saying Morrison's had done everything they could have, I have my doubts.
Most companies I've seen talk a great game and then have a list of master passwords on a share-drive or a system that allows what amounts to a full database dump to a USB.
This is false advertising and the FTC should be calling them on it.
One of the better things our FTC equivalent has done in Australia is clamp down on this type of drip feed pricing.
It's noteworthy that the human sock puppet running the FCC for you guys has decided that it's too hard for poor little ISPs to work out how much they're going to charge you so you'll need to work that out yourselves.
Agreed. It's hard to come to any other conclusion. This algorithm has matched to a 15 second clip of a cover. The logic being used must be so basic as to be absurd.
I question FB's role in this though. There is no requirement for them to auto-process this rubbish. They could enforce minimum standards for their automated process and send everything else for manual assessment.
Another reason this type of thing really bugs me is that it makes no sense for the business.
Even in a case where the algorithm identifies that the video is undeniably an unauthorised copy. So what?
Is anyone so committed to both FB and piracy that the only way they consume music is by watching unauthorised copies of works via FB posts???
I spend so much time in meetings with marketeers who are super pumped about social media influencers, customer centricity and building community engagement.
If you're algorithm identifies Charlotte (someone with 13k followers) as having uploaded this song don't get her account suspended, send her a cheque and a thank you note and offer her an HD copy of the video to upload as well.
Morons.
This is less funny than it seems. When you look at the classes of jobs AI's are predicted to replace they tend to be jobs where all the upside rests with the company and all the downside with the customer. These are things like helpdesks, delivery jobs (taxi, courier etc), HR/Payroll etc.
HR departments suck not because of the humans but because companies hate spending a cent more on them than is strictly necessary and heck, no-one in the C-suite ever has a problem getting HR to jump when they say jump so how bad can it be? HR won't be better if you replace them with an AI
The dollar figures in this article seem a little optimistic - IBM hardware/Software + Large Corporate IT department + new technology implementation = $1.4 million + $100k ongoing. It's not clear what those dollar figures are paying for but that seems pretty cheap.
Advertising measures don't have a monopoly on this type of thing though.
Every company I've worked for, all of which had lovely, expensive relational databases of all of there customers has struggled to answer the very simple question of, "How many customers do we have?"
And often there is nothing you can do about it. Corporate acquisition? Have fun reconciling the common customer databases (assuming any serious effort is even put into it). Reliant on some sort of industry data (think: poles and wires)? God help you when someone asks you how many people have internet AND phone service or gas AND electricity.
And I've seen these numbers go to regulatory reporting or investor briefings knowing that they are all over the place. We had a situation where in a particular territory the main competitors were claiming about 20% more households than there were houses (at least according to the census data).
I think when you work with this sort of situation you just get used to giving a 'good' number for whatever people are looking for.
You have an error in this story:
It's just that they have a different interpretation of what's "bad."
The focus is on the wrong problem here. If you have a law that criminalizes 'conspiring' then, by definition, you're criminalizing something that hasn't happened.
If you accept that conspiring to commit certain crimes is itself a crime then you have to accept certain imaginary elements as evidence. At that point, someone has to decide which imaginary things are 'real' imaginary things - it's hilarious....unless you're staring down the barrel of 20 years in prison.
Something that isn't addressed is the criminality of the government. The government was part of this conspiracy and imaginary evidence isn't a barrier to prosecution so does that make their behavior criminal? It's accepted that police have some latitude to break the law but does that/should that extend to crimes with a mandatory 20 year sentence?
So as an Australian citizen, I now have all of my demographic, health, welfare and internet browsing data held online by the government - that will definitely end well.
You forgot that time Verizon showed the kids it was hip by adding an ad into Alan Wake. Its actually hilarious how jarring it is.
The corporations aren't the problem here - they're actually acting exactly as you'd expect. The problem is the cosy welcome they get from those who are supposed to be looking after the public's interest.
It's unclear to me how our public officials could ever think these clauses benefit the people they are supposed to represent.
...undermining free market competition and putting a government thumb on the scale for powerful incumbents like Google, and making it harder for those serving communities of color and providing diverse and independent programming to make the video ecosystem work
Thanks a lot! I was eating while reading this and I literally had yoghurt come out of my nose. I think there's still a blueberry in there somewhere
This was similar to my thinking. If someone not affiliated with his campaign made this happen it would create an issue that he needs to deal with and who would believe a politician didn't if he said it wasn't authorized by him
You're misinterpreting the quote:
"has used its questioning powers only 16 times since 9/11."
Does anyone seriously think Net neutrality has a snowflake's chance in hell? If so, please point me to some other internationally agreed 'level playing field' where strong neutrality has worked because I can't think of a single example. Trade? Nope. Education? Nope. Healthcare? Nope. Sport? Nope.
Rain
There's a good journalism 101 tweet going around on point here:
If one person says it's raining and another says it isn't, it's not your job to report both opinions, it's your job to look out the f__king window