Someone should sue them for censorship. I bet it takes them 10 seconds to figure out why it is not censorship for a company like them to do this. And I also bet they're too dumb to see the parallel.
After reading of similar events in the past: I theorize that officers (fed and state) prefer a witness be murdered in many cases. The reason would be simple: it is easier to get a life sentence conviction for murder than (in this case) what they probably thought to be a he/she said rape case.
It's otherwise hard to see why -- as in this case -- officers so frequently clue in perpetrators about talking witnesses...and then leave those witnesses swinging in the breeze, without protection.
Suppose the goal is to identify practical means of distinguish:
1) A poll that wiil influence the election
2) A poll that will influence an election in an incorrect way
To accomplish (1) you will need to know the forecast model that is used and whether or not it is correctly applied and/or applied without bias. How do you propose that a media company might practically do that?
To accomplish (2) you need to know the eventual outcome of the election. To predict that, I suppose you plan to use a poll...which takes us back to (1).
The forecasting model is the common feature of all the items I named. It comes to a question of which a particular model -- or any model, for that matter -- will produce correct results.
I suppose, of course you could use the time-honored method of blockinig polls that, in your opinion, influence the election in the direction you don't like...
If a poll "impacts voter behavior", how do we even know if it was wrong? If weather forecasts are often wrong, should all weather forecasts be blocked? Prediction related to COVID was wrong several times, so if the the black death comes around, should we block all predictions? Should classification of carcinogens be banned because we don't actually know who will get cancer?
This is not an NYT, FOX, or CNN problem. This is a Fourth Estate problem.
Once upon a time, politicians of all stripes were afraid of the Fourth Estate, because if a politician did wrong, their career got destroyed -- couldn't win an election for dog catcher. Generally. It wasn't a perfect system, but what human system is?
Then the Fourth Estate learned the "Rules of Acquisition" and became the Fourth Prostitutes, seeking money glorious money...their mantra is money and they have forgotten their role in society.
The problem with being a prostitute is that you have to do a lot of service, in order to get the money. So all the issue of the Fourth Prostitutes are now servicing one agenda or another: Some do it for one side; some for the other; some do it for whoever comes around waving money; and some do it if someone comes around threatening to stop up a money flow.
It's gotten so bad that the press is routinely physically attacked -- with impunity. Used to be that the only thing worse for your career than hurting a reporter was shooting a cop. These days they can't even work up a good ire for fear of annoying someone they're servicing.
I am sure NYT publishing these articles was just a good day's servicing.
So... that's preposterously broad. If some comment spammer shows up in the Techdirt comments and posts some nonsense "promoting" drugs, I would have to file an official report with the DOJ? This would be an incredible burden for nearly any website.
It's also going to be an incredible burden on the DOJ. When the first day -- and every day thereafter -- brings them a ten petabyte haystack to search for needles, do you think they will use the needles instead to grow Scarecrow's brain?
Innovators create new things to sell, and are well aware others will jump to imitate (imitation is what we do best). They never stop creating; ignoring imitators; profiting before the imitators come out in force.
IP lawyers find something to patent, and milk imitators until it all turns to dust, creating nothing. If it were up to IP lawyers we'd still be living in frigid caves, because warmth is patented.
...despite the fact that no one has shown any actual evidence of anti-conservative bias beyond assholes, trolls, and literal Nazis upset that they got banned.
Ummmm...point...they haven't shown any evidence, either. Not of anti-conservative bias. Their so-called "conservative speech"...isn't.
I simply can't imagine that said data will show that intrusive ads that everyone hates are good for the company.
I don't know what planet you live on, but...
What's good for the company -- any company -- is profit. Always, only profit. All the evils that companies do to consumers -- intrusive ads, invasion of privacy, regulatory capture, intellectual property abuse, price gouging, and etc. -- it's all done in service of greater profit. The theory that companies should benefit anyone other than themselves went out before button shoes.
You say that you "...can't imagine that said data will show...," well, the only data Twitch management will consider is the bottom line. Outraged comments will be ignored. "Talent" that votes with their feet will be ignored. If the bottom line tilts up, Twitch will do these ads, and the "talent" is given a blunt choice: live with it or go elsewhere.
Re:
Someone should sue them for censorship. I bet it takes them 10 seconds to figure out why it is not censorship for a company like them to do this. And I also bet they're too dumb to see the parallel.
Must be something
Any news on whether Twitch is now a wholly owned subsidiary of RIAA? Of Hell? (Would there be a difference?)
Murder is better
After reading of similar events in the past: I theorize that officers (fed and state) prefer a witness be murdered in many cases. The reason would be simple: it is easier to get a life sentence conviction for murder than (in this case) what they probably thought to be a he/she said rape case.
It's otherwise hard to see why -- as in this case -- officers so frequently clue in perpetrators about talking witnesses...and then leave those witnesses swinging in the breeze, without protection.
Re: Re: Should we forecast?
Suppose the goal is to identify practical means of distinguish:
1) A poll that wiil influence the election
2) A poll that will influence an election in an incorrect way
To accomplish (1) you will need to know the forecast model that is used and whether or not it is correctly applied and/or applied without bias. How do you propose that a media company might practically do that?
To accomplish (2) you need to know the eventual outcome of the election. To predict that, I suppose you plan to use a poll...which takes us back to (1).
The forecasting model is the common feature of all the items I named. It comes to a question of which a particular model -- or any model, for that matter -- will produce correct results.
I suppose, of course you could use the time-honored method of blockinig polls that, in your opinion, influence the election in the direction you don't like...
Should we forecast?
If a poll "impacts voter behavior", how do we even know if it was wrong? If weather forecasts are often wrong, should all weather forecasts be blocked? Prediction related to COVID was wrong several times, so if the the black death comes around, should we block all predictions? Should classification of carcinogens be banned because we don't actually know who will get cancer?
Prediction of the future is a very special case.
Reading between the lines
First the Dish dump, now this. Both very uncharacteristic. Is AT&T hinting of bankruptcy?
Impressively thin skin
For some people, it truly is the principle of the thing. If SCOTUS lets him down, where does he go from there?
Constitutional Amendment to repeal the First Amendment?
Constitutional convention?
Revolution?
Fourth Estate Problem
This is not an NYT, FOX, or CNN problem. This is a Fourth Estate problem.
Once upon a time, politicians of all stripes were afraid of the Fourth Estate, because if a politician did wrong, their career got destroyed -- couldn't win an election for dog catcher. Generally. It wasn't a perfect system, but what human system is?
Then the Fourth Estate learned the "Rules of Acquisition" and became the Fourth Prostitutes, seeking money glorious money...their mantra is money and they have forgotten their role in society.
The problem with being a prostitute is that you have to do a lot of service, in order to get the money. So all the issue of the Fourth Prostitutes are now servicing one agenda or another: Some do it for one side; some for the other; some do it for whoever comes around waving money; and some do it if someone comes around threatening to stop up a money flow.
It's gotten so bad that the press is routinely physically attacked -- with impunity. Used to be that the only thing worse for your career than hurting a reporter was shooting a cop. These days they can't even work up a good ire for fear of annoying someone they're servicing.
I am sure NYT publishing these articles was just a good day's servicing.
Re: Turning valid evidence into illegal evidence?
Oh, well. Looks like SFPD and will have to go back to parallel construction.
Stay behind the Joneses
Memo to RCMP: Stop trying to outdo US DOJ.
Possible reason
Because they seem to want to turn the whole world into a trash heap of racism and abuse -- and they have to start somewhere?
The meaning of haystack
It's also going to be an incredible burden on the DOJ. When the first day -- and every day thereafter -- brings them a ten petabyte haystack to search for needles, do you think they will use the needles instead to grow Scarecrow's brain?
Re:
The cops don't have a bazillion $$$$ in the bank.
Creating vs. Milking
Innovators create new things to sell, and are well aware others will jump to imitate (imitation is what we do best). They never stop creating; ignoring imitators; profiting before the imitators come out in force.
IP lawyers find something to patent, and milk imitators until it all turns to dust, creating nothing. If it were up to IP lawyers we'd still be living in frigid caves, because warmth is patented.
Pot blackens self to match kettle, then calls kettle black
This is wrong, wrong, wrong...So we're gonna do it, too.
Not conservatives
Ummmm...point...they haven't shown any evidence, either. Not of anti-conservative bias. Their so-called "conservative speech"...isn't.
Curtilage
You'd think a judge would know what "curtilage" is.
Especially since he is probably having Persistent Surveillance Systems exclude his curtilage from observation.
No chance
No way in Hell does this pass the Senate, much less get signed. Doesn't specify Russian Buddy brand Election Security.
(untitled comment)
I don't know what planet you live on, but...
What's good for the company -- any company -- is profit. Always, only profit. All the evils that companies do to consumers -- intrusive ads, invasion of privacy, regulatory capture, intellectual property abuse, price gouging, and etc. -- it's all done in service of greater profit. The theory that companies should benefit anyone other than themselves went out before button shoes.
You say that you "...can't imagine that said data will show...," well, the only data Twitch management will consider is the bottom line. Outraged comments will be ignored. "Talent" that votes with their feet will be ignored. If the bottom line tilts up, Twitch will do these ads, and the "talent" is given a blunt choice: live with it or go elsewhere.
Re:
I see.
But how do we go about identifying these people, "who might think it a good idea to be loudly upset"?
More comments from Coyne Tibbets >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Coyne Tibbets.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt