Natanael_L

The main problem here is that people who lack access to the document effectively can't participate in the discussions, if there isn't enough public information about the document accessible by other means.

You can discuss the general requirements, and paragraph numbers, etc, but there's a limit to how much somebody who has the document can quote without legal problems. Somebody else who sees the discussion can not know if the discussions contain complete enough information to "reverse engineer" the standard well enough to meet its requirements.

All those discussions about the ISO date standard involves getting information from somebody who has access to the document and who then shared the information in public. Not all documents has that degree of public commentary.

And if you need to ask about sections which haven't been previously described in sufficient detail for your needs, then you're personally relying on individual people who have access to read it and rewrite the information for you. Which is a lot of work and also legally uncertain.

Fair use standards are not all that consistent. And that's a legal defense you can use in court after already having been sued, not before. Enough for context can vary between one sentence or three pages.

This means every single thing must be very carefully rewritten. You can not cite every single sentence in the full document, you would have to mimic Wine and rewrite the entire thing until your lawyers aren't worried about getting sued anymore.

And nobody's doing that.

Most people aren't going to quote much anyway, which means the people who don't know what's referenced can't understand it because they have no context. Which brings us back to square one, you can't meaningfully discuss the content in public.

Not every startup has big investors from day one

If you want it to be done externally without setting up a routing table then the next best option would be some kind of traffic tagging to indicate what you want to go over which line. That would start looking like a network with multiple VLAN:s.

If either your ISP exposes that ability or if you maintain multiple outbound connections, then yes. But I don't think this is commonly implemented today, however.

You would probably have to configure your own routing table to direct traffic for each application through the appropriate link, but that's completely doable as long as you can write rules to distinguish the packets (for example based on destination).

Capabilities systems are designed specifically for this purpose. In such a system, a capability specifically for the user's right to access A and B is exposed as handle / token, and services A and B can't access anything without first being given an exposed capability handle. Notably, capabilities can be constrained so that it's not keys to the kingdom.

No. CDA section 230 covers all online services. There is no special social media exception.

The only way for the service to be a dumb pipe is to not involve any kind of promotion or ranking algorithms to it, other than spam filtering. In other words, you can't have a dynamic high quality forum that is open to the public, with focus on the best content displayed first, and also be a dumb pipe. To prevent all moderation and ranking based on quality and opinion would quickly turn most sites into pure trash.

It is unreasonable to apply such regulations to anything but the actual dumb pipe, the internet connection (net neutrality).

Federation is indeed a much better choice. Allows the host to still set a quality standard on their server, and is at the same time free from gatekeepers. See Mastodon, Matrix, etc. Go to whichever host will accept you, talk to anybody willing to talk to you, and bans only kick you off specific servers.

No regulation needed.

The number of signs is not a super strong indicator for the area by itself.

How are those tokens less complicated to use than a private keypair? How do you ensure that the votes are cast anonymously, without leaking metadata from timing, etc?

Then how else do you validate the identity of the voter? What do you gain if you can't prevent fraud by inserting fake votes?

Wasn't just me saying it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/usps-states...

Maybe some predictions. Not all. Especially with the tampering work the postal service, extra delays in counting of mail-in votes were expected.

Predicted.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Natanael_L/status/132318782573555...

https://mobile.twitter.com/Natanael_L/status/132264461649207...

https://mobile.twitter.com/Natanael_L/status/131234902989287...

Almost none of the districts were 100% Biden, with a few exceptions - districts which are historically democratic leaning, AND in which journalists literally could not find one single person claiming to have voted for Trump when they investigated these numbers.

And I have not heard of any example of mail-in batches going 100% to Biden.

There's statistics over the split in mail-in votes. There's like 2x more democratic mail-in votes than republican mail-in votes.

You're assuming a relative scale, I'm assuming an absolute scale.

Yes and no.

Techniques like Zero-knowledge proofs, homomorphic encryption and multiparty computation exists, but none of them are sufficient for elections. The security requirements are simply too complex, and we can't require that every voter manages a private keypair to issue their votes from an electronic device they can't audit.

Paper voting is safer.

Yes they are, and several states followed up with manual hand counts. This includes Georgia (which performed 3 manual recounts!).

Chances are they're forgetting that Trump actively discouraged his supporters from voting by mail, which along with the fact that most states counted mail-in votes last meant that most Trump votes were counted early while most Biden votes were counted late.

This meant that the intermediate results early on pointed to Trump and then shifted to Biden.

This effect was predicted in the very beginning of the pandemic! As soon as we knew mail-in voting would many up such a large fraction of votes, this was obvious, and many (including me) anticipated that Trump and others would make up propaganda about this, or even try to stop the vote counting early to stop the mail-in votes from getting counted.

For internet services in general (and most other non-broadcast communications), free speech laws in many jurisdictions prevent most (or all) types of content regulation.

There's nothing moderate about them. They're just not sufficiently extreme for the taste of those audiences. They fell under scrutiny that some of their smaller competitors aren't facing, so they're trying to maintain plausible deniability, which means the crowd of extremists has to go elsewhere to get their rage fix.

I also don't think there's a strong correlation / causation, but this isn't solid proof.

If there was a causation then the reduction in violent crime could be muted by a small factor due to games, while the net decrease is (as before) caused by an even larger independent factor. In other words, the net decrease could have been larger without the presence of games.

What it does instead show is a maximum plausible effect size, and that it likely isn't worse than the activities which it is replacing.

It can be something simple like having work with more visible impact

Their copyright bots have no understanding of what public domain is, all it understands is resemblance to copies of work that somebody else has uploaded and claimed copyright ownership of.

Zero regards to the possibility of many people being able to legally create independent works that are derivatives of the same public domain work, without any one of them preventing others from creating new independent copies.

One of the problems here is when Amazon has one shared item listing for multiple sellers.

A bad review for the product due to one seller's shipping hurts all the other sellers too.

Steam has done something smart here by displaying both the total score and a recent trend score, so you can see if recent changes has made the game better or worse.

While they probably can't be forced to publish negative reviews, I think it could be viable to use false advertising laws against misrepresenting the product / service through manipulating reviews.

DMCA counter claims do not force a restore, it just permits the host to restore without personal liability for infringement (as the uploader takes on the full legal liability for the material, and often need to identify themselves in the process).

Republican politicians appealed personally to Zuckerberg over fact checks on right wing disinformation and bans of right wing trolls and they agreed to not hold those people to the ToS.

That would be an act of submitting false evidence, where you actively make a false claim regarding who the sample belongs to.

Which is very distinctly different from a passive act of not maintaining evidence of the origin of every single thing. Keep in mind that no data is altered - the equivalent of all collected samples remaining intact.

It's still just as possible to collect email logs, their contents do not magically dissappear. They would have to be actively manipulated by the party which holds the copy that would be provided to the police (either reported to them or confiscated, etc). That same party could already decide to delete the emails or strip signatures and then alter them.

I would actually like to see combination of the two tested. Such as a greyscale high resolution e-ink base and a transparent layer of Mirasol like color pixels that can activate.

Kind of mimicking CMYK from print, and LED TV:s locally adjusting LED backlight to improve contrast ratios, and some high HDR screens. Except a very low energy use variant.

I would expect any half decent prosecutor to focus on how the emails were acquired when a verifiable DKIM signature is missing. Then the defense doesn't even need to bring that argument up, just challenge the provenance of the evidence.