In this context, diversity refers to characteristics, not to differences of opinion. That said, diverse thinking can be valuable when used for prosocial purposes.
131 karma · joined December 3, 2019
(Although I have a law degree nothing I share here should be considered legal advice. The law is complicated and does not have many clear lines. Your circumstances deserve a lawyer familiar with your specific situation.)
All of our passwords are randomly generated with entropy greater than 150 bits.
Have seen several others reporting this as well.
[I've included the link to the CDC report above and the summary below because this information is important and should be accessible (i.e. should not require allowing fbcdn.net trackers). I also prefer the source to somebody's interpretation. If the original article provides additional insight I'd like to see a non-FB link to it, my admittedly quick scan of the comments did not spot one.]
From the SUMMARY of that report:
What is already known about this topic? During 2020, the proportion of mental health–related emergency department (ED) visits among adolescents aged 12–17 years increased 31% compared with that during 2019.
What is added by this report? In May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, ED visits for suspected suicide attempts began to increase among adolescents aged 12–17 years, especially girls. During February 21–March 20, 2021, suspected suicide attempt ED visits were 50.6% higher among girls aged 12–17 years than during the same period in 2019; among boys aged 12–17 years, suspected suicide attempt ED visits increased 3.7%.
What are the implications for public health practice? Suicide prevention requires a comprehensive approach that is adapted during times of infrastructure disruption, involves multisectoral partnerships and implements evidence-based strategies to address the range of factors influencing suicide risk.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that 100% of major email providers have stated they do not sell ads based on email content.
Next we have to either: take their word for it or have the means to verify their claims.
Taking their word for it is difficult because many major email providers have a spotty relationship with honesty. This issue of honesty is not necessarily very different from other large corporations and in truth might be a factor in what made them a large corporation in the first place.
(As First Baron Thurlow is claimed to have said: "Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?")
And so we would instead need the means to verify the claims of these major email providers. I'm unsure of how to reasonably do that.
►Perhaps allow Qui Tam claims for privacy issues combined with a statutorily defined "cost" for each false claim instance?
Qui tam allows, for example, private citizens to file suit against bad-actor govt contractors in the name of the govt. The "whistleblower" then receives a share of recovered proceeds.
Here, if a statutory "cost" was defined for every false claim related to using the content of email messages (say $1 per message) then this might provide a way to help verify that the major email providers are being truthful in what they claim regarding their use of content in messages.
Email providers would know their employees are on the lookout for a big payday and might honor their public promises. And if they don't, a few large qui tam lawsuits would quickly get their attention (or drive them into bankruptcy).
Unfortunately I have seen recently some arbitration clauses now include language saying, for example, that arbitration costs will be shared equally(!) or otherwise limiting their use by consumers.
However, the more that these mandatory arbitration clauses limit consumer rights the more likely that they will be found to be unenforceable. This is one reason that you'll often find that contracts with mandatory arbitration will have a clause specifying that in the event the arbitration clause is unenforceable that the rest of the agreement still stands.
The MegaCorps add this clause because they know that they are pushing the boundaries of what will be allowed by the courts.
Historically arbitration was intended to be a solution for parties of comparable bargaining power (e.g. MegaCorpABC vs MegaCorpXYZ) but instead are increasingly used by MegaCorp vs LittleConsumer.
Does anybody in the U.S. have a credit card that doesn't impose mandatory arbitration? Not that I've seen.
This is a topic that deserves much more news coverage. Most consumers have no clue how mandatory arbitration is being used against them.
And that's before we even consider their more egregious use in, for example, employment agreements as was the case in the article you've shared.
And they say:
"Why not? We indicated in the TOS (on page 4) our ability to 'modify the program as needed to better support our customers or our services.'
"Also please note that our TOS, which incorporates our Privacy Policy, allows us to sell your wake-up time to third parties in real-time.
"And before you say you never agreed to our TOS, we say you did when you plugged the SuperSmartestAlarm into a power outlet (as clearly indicated on page 22 of the aforementioned TOS, which can be conveniently viewed in a 6" x 2" frame with vertical and horizontal scrollbars)."
[Since this is too close to the truth to be obvious satire: no, this is not happening AFAIK (right now).]
I would also argue that some of these bad acts could be considered to be false / deceptive trade practices under the various state laws (in the U.S. at least). For example, some people would never have bought a FireTV cube for streaming video if Amazon had revealed that they would be adding advertisements to the consumer's video-viewing experience.
But: how much incentive is there for individuals to file a small claims suit against Amazon for a $79 device? Generally speaking you might get treble damages but not much more unless you've had actual damages.
And although class action suits are frustrating and should be "fixed" so that those harmed get the bulk of the proceeds (i.e. it's not okay that consumers receive discount coupons or $10 checks while plaintiff's counsel receives a disproportionally huge payday) this is one thing we've lost by generally not allowing class actions.
David v. Goliath is not as effective as 15,000 Davids v. Goliath.
Not to even mention the mandatory arbitration imposed on consumers (which do sometimes carve out the ability to file in small claims court).
We have cultivated, or at least allowed, a very anti-consumer bias to take hold in U.S. law.
However, not all US states allow all types of damage claims and/or have special rules or higher burdens of proof related to those types of claims.
Generally speaking though, it is incorrect to say that somebody must show that they have had actual, monetary damages in order to be successful in a defamation lawsuit.
This overview from the Legal Information Institute (Cornell Law School) has some helpful info: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
Although the games are also available through the appstores or for direct download, those channels are not as accessible for many people, especially those on the other side of the digital-divide. No smartphone, tablet, or home PC? Then turn to the web instead: our evidence-based and award-winning games are used by educators in classrooms, by parents at home, and by young people who access them via public libraries.
The web is the best outlet for these games because it is by far the most accessible of platforms. These games are also much safer from a privacy perspective via the web than installing an always-on & always-tracking game from Google Play.
And though these are not AAA games and they don't include microtransactions or advertisements that merely means nobody is getting rich from them. But that isn't our goal. Our goal is to drive positive change in the most efficient way possible.
Genuinely free video games via the web is how to safely reach and empower hundreds of thousands of young people around the world about issues important to them.
2) In the long run the bad actors who exploit users through IAP/loot boxes are harming the entire industry. This is not a secret to anybody in the industry -- but the bad actors are throwing enough money around that (to a great extent) they've been allowed to keep raking it in so far regardless of the consequences.
3) Genuinely free games do exist but stand little chance when competing with "free-but-IAP-and-dark-patterns" games. App stores need to do more to help users.
4) Strong industry representation is needed to set the proper tone but ESA has not seemed able (or possibly willing) to stand up to some of their funders. At least ESA is finally rid of the bully who'd run it for years. Hopefully they'll do what's right once we begin to return to normalcy.
The published studies (two so far) support their effectiveness. It's not easy to get the word out though without the funds for a publicist, advertising, etc.
Violence, per se, is not as relevant as the context for that violence. The more revelatory question is not whether 'violent video games do lead to agression' but instead whether they could.
If, for example, the protagonist in a video game has an attitude or behavior that is treated as aspirational then it's more likely that players of that game (especially those with less life experience) will themselves ascribe to that attitude or behavior. And if that newfound attitude or behavior persists, then over time it is likely to lead to changes in action.
The study that would be more helpful is not the one that evaluates the impact of violent content due to its mere presence but rather evaluates the impact based on the context in which that violence is presented.
Although I do feel for those who began at Google when they still ascribed to the Don't Be Evil mantra -- at some point you have a responsibility to look around you and recognize the work you're doing has become part of the problem.
You cannot sell those apps. You cannot use those apps on competitor devices.
Absolutely untrue: [1]Otherwise healthy people have died from COVID-19. And [2], healthy, asymptomatic carriers have infected friends and family members who have themselves died from it.
The parent comment is misleading, dangerous, and should be removed.
---
[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-19-underl...
[2]https://www.uchealth.org/today/the-truth-about-asymptomatic-...
(edited for styling purposes)
Wish it was this painless to migrate from other Google offerings!
Many services are difficult to quantify and/or cannot exist merely by charging only those who directly benefit from them.
This year some districts are delaying opening; some offering virtual as an option; some offering virtual-only.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/08/twitter-faces-ft...
The authors have a site which includes their letters to the FTC, etc which provide greater detail and references: https://www.representconsumers.org/surveillance-scoring/
isitdownrightnow.com down
I wanted to add that the freely given requirement can be very granular / fact intensive. This later comment shows one way (renumeration) the above can be accomplished without coercion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23762945
You are correct. However, the prohibition against "a service conditional on consent" can be overcome (inter alia means "among other things") and one of the ways it can be overcome is if the user is given a choice to instead select "a consent-free equivalent service for a reasonable remuneration."[1]
This is the result of a ruling by the Austrian Data Protection Authority (DPA) evaluating an case in which users could access an Austrian newspaper by either (a) consenting to personalized advertising or (b) paying a subscription fee of 6 Euro / month.
The DPA found that these options were not considered a "significant detriment" to users (i.e. it was not considered coercive) and was therefore valid.
It's worth noting that the UK found otherwise, saying that "for the user to have a genuine choice, a consent-free alternative would have to be offered free of charge."[2]
-----
[1] Austrian Data Protection Authority (case no. DSB-D122.931/0003-DSB/2018)
[2] Validity of consent coupled with free online services - Chair of EDPB opens a path https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5125ca7c-84fa...
- consent requires, among other things, that permission be given freely;[1]
- so, if coercion is involved then consent does not exist;[2]
- and, preventing user access to content unless that user agrees to be tracked is likely considered to be coercive.
Therefore if a user grants permission to be tracked only in order to gain access to that site's content, that granted permission would not be considered consensual because that permission was not given freely.
(the above is not legal advice but I do have a law degree; I also work for a NGO that produces apps that teach people about consent)
----- [1]GDPR Article 4(11) [2]GDPR Recital 42
And rather than try to infer your implication(s) about Investigation Discovery I will ask directly:
- Do they treat murder as a venue for entertainment? - Are they seemingly indifferent to the impact on victims?
Because, if it was not clear, those were the points I was trying to convey about the unhealthy aspects of Quibi's show.
No amount of quality content could overcome my revulsion to use a service which features this:
"There's a new television show in the works that combines all your favorite things: home renovation projects and true crime stories [...] all about renovation houses where murders took place."[1]
[1] https://www.iheart.com/content/2019-09-11-new-tv-show-called...