**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

It makes perfect sense. You're just getting mad over moral stuff.

Explain how it makes sense.

[Savy]

Explain how it makes sense.

Person A and Person B are the same except one is contributing money to the economy in that they have it.

Actually the only moral argument I've heard ITT is that he's a flawed individual because he doesn't work for his money. My question is if someone else doesn't work for their money also, but has a lot more of it, why aren't you outraged about that?

I'm not outraged by any of it. I don't really care what person A through Z do with their lives. When I say you're mad about the morality of it I moreso mean people having a problem with one person but not the other. I don't think what has been said is any justification of that liking.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not outraged by any of it. I don't really care what person A through Z do with their lives.

Ooooh, don't make me dig up some post where you slagged Ong for being on benefits.

[Savy]

Ooooh, don't make me dig up some post where you slagged Ong for being on benefits.

Do you want to dig up all the ones where I fully support his decision to do what he wants with his life whilst you're at it? They will be a lot easier to find.

[Poopadoop]

You're just getting mad over moral stuff.

Actually the only moral argument I've heard ITT is that he's a flawed individual because he doesn't work for his money. My question is if someone else doesn't work for their money also, but has a lot more of it, why aren't you outraged about that?

[wufwugy]

Actually the only moral argument I've heard ITT is that he's a flawed individual because he doesn't work for his money. My question is if someone else doesn't work for their money also, but has a lot more of it, why aren't you outraged about that?

Both Person A's and B's money was worked for, just not by them. Person A's money was worked for and earned by his parents (at least that's what I recall the original hypothesis was), and they passed it onto him. Person B's money was worked for and earned by Persons A-Z (excluding B) and then taken from them and given to Person B.

In the Person A situation, the earned money operates as investment capital, savings, and some other stuff. 10m creates a lot of jobs even when sitting in the bank.

Person B is a different situation. We have to subtract a small amount of productive capacity from Persons A-Z (minus B), and then also subtract Person B's potential productivity that he would have if he wasn't given Persons A-Z's (minus B) money to be unproductive. If Persons A-Z (excluding B) were not taken from and given to B, all A-Z (including B) would be more productive. In the other hypothetical, if Person A didn't have the 10m for whatever reason, he would be less productive (by a lot) and Persons B-Z would be unchanged*.


On a side note, a neat thing is that Person A, if he just sits on the money, is actually being very smart. In a lot of ways, when you have a lot of money, you don't want to mess around. Letting it act as investment capital and diversifying might be the smartest thing you could do in that situation. Person A, by having a huge amount of cash, has a comparative advantage in not trying to do anything with it himself and instead letting the experts (banks, intermediaries) match his capital with entrepreneurs.


*They would be changed, just indirectly and in ways we're not discussing here, like less productivity from Person A means less productivity elsewhere due to less spillover.

[wufwugy]

If Trump is playing 3d chess on healthcare, it's a testament to how well he's playing since I think he is but I'm too uncertain to call it.

What I think he's been doing from the beginning: Boosting Ryancare solidly (but not to his normal fervor) knowing that it will fail. Then Ryan gets delegitimized and a new Speaker gets chosen. It would probably be somebody from the Freedom Caucus, like Meadows. Normally it would never fly, but with Ryan's failure, his backers would have no steam and Trump could tell them he tried real hard and they tried real hard and it just didn't work. Then they could actually get a good bill that repeals Ocare.

Or, failure of the bill is meant to galvanize support against the Dems and GOPe for 2018, as Ocare will still be in place and will be much more audibly exploding. I suspect it's the first option though.


Or, I'm hallucinating. I don't know. This is a tough one. Some shit really does not add up at all. It doesn't help that many of my quality Trump sources are keeping quiet and half his base is split, half thinking this is a wicked play and the other half bobbleheading with Trump's words.

Ultimately, this bill can't become law. There is no way Trump thinks that if he signs something like this he will win reelection, though it's possible the plan is to change the bill significantly after House passing. Trump has to know that putting his mark on any law like Ryancare means we'll be saying hello to President Pocahontas in 2020.

[wufwugy]

Could be that Trump put Ryan in this place to get Ryan to bend over to save face. So a deal could still be made here but with much better terms than Ryan wants for his beloved Obamacare.

[OngBonga]

As for insurance, well we kind of have it... National Insurance. I say "kind of" because it's not really insurance, it's an income tax. But it's much easier for people who have paid enough National Insurance to get benefits. There are less conditions for them to fulfill, at least for a given time relative to their contributions.

I don't see what's wrong with the system as is, at least from my pov. The only people who would be happy to live on the money that I live on would be unambitious people who don't care for material possessions. That is a very small minority of the population.

I anticipate serious problems with security and homelessness if we remove the benefit system. That seems worse to me than a few people milking the system.

[wufwugy]

As for insurance, well we kind of have it... National Insurance. I say "kind of" because it's not really insurance, it's an income tax. But it's much easier for people who have paid enough National Insurance to get benefits. There are less conditions for them to fulfill, at least for a given time relative to their contributions.

I don't see what's wrong with the system as is, at least from my pov. The only people who would be happy to live on the money that I live on would be unambitious people who don't care for material possessions. That is a very small minority of the population.

I anticipate serious problems with security and homelessness if we remove the benefit system. That seems worse to me than a few people milking the system.

They're unambitious largely because they're not working.

Stop feeding the willful homeless and like magic they'll get real damn ambitious.

[wufwugy]

Teh model accounts for both of those. "Unemployable" people get more utility from not being employed. The labor/leisure trade-off doesn't inherently distinguish between documented and undocumented labor. The model shows how individuals' choices regarding making money/not making money change based on an input change given a set of preferences.

[wufwugy]

Reading the news/punditry bloviate about Trump and healthcare is fascinating. A whole lot of them have been wrong every step of the way regarding Trump, and they're saying one thing. The few who have been right every step of the way are saying something else. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[OngBonga]

This is my last post on this topic. I'll give you the last word if you'd like.

Fair enough.

Economists model this stuff. Your lack of ambition is directly tied to how much money the government gives you.

My last word is this... there isn't an economist in the world better placed than I am to tell you why I lack ambition. And I couldn't even tell you with any certainty. But it has fuck all to do with money.

[Savy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39397938

Those god damn laptops. When will it end?

[Jack Sawyer]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7650636.html

Angela Merkel will reportedly ignore Donald Trump’s attempts to extricate £300bn from Germany for what he deems to be owed contributions to Nato.
The US President is said to have had an “invoice” printed out outlining the sum estimated by his aides as covering Germany’s unpaid contributions for defence.

[BananaStand]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7650636.html

Fake fucking news!

The US President is said to have had an “invoice” printed out outlining the sum estimated by his aides as covering Germany’s unpaid contributions for defence.

"is said to have"....by whom? Fake fucking news.

White House press secretary has denied reports that Mr Trump gave Ms Merkel a bill during their meeting, telling Business Insider: "No, this is not true."

Seems like it would be pretty easy to catch Spicer in this lie if there actually was an invoice.

What's wrong with Germany paying their fair share anyway?

[Poopadoop]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7650636.html

The funny thing about this is that whether it's true or not, it's the kind of thing you can see Trump doing. That pretty much says it all.

[OngBonga]

What's wrong with Germany paying their fair share anyway?

Who are you to decide what their "fair share" is? They pay more than most. In terms of spending, they are 4th highest contributors. Per capita, they're spending more than some other similar sized nations, such as Turkey and Italy, although they're behind France. They have more committed soldiers than even the UK. They're slacking when it comes to expenditure relative to GDP.

Who do you think is paying their fair share? USA, naturally. UK probably, France too. Estonia do remarkable for a tiny country. Poland and Greece are at or above 2% GDP. After that, Germany outperform pretty much everyone else.

I'd slap them in the "average" pile and call that "fair share".

source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

[BananaStand]

I'd slap them in the "average" pile and call that "fair share".

That's cause you're thinking with the same lib-tard brain that thinks you're not hurting anyone because you use consume less government benefits than some other people. Just because something isn't the worst possible form of a problem, doesn't mean it's not a problem.

they're spending more than some other similar sized nations,

So? Who said Germany was the only one being stingy?

[wufwugy]

Who are you to decide what their "fair share" is?

They are. And they have done so by mutual agreement. Germany and most of the rest of NATO are not living up to the terms which they agreed upon.

[OngBonga]

They are. And they have done so by mutual agreement. Germany and most of the rest of NATO are not living up to the terms which they agreed upon.

And what terms are these? I was under the impression that the terminology was pretty loose, something like "with the aim to spend 2% of GDP", which doesn't actually commit to doing so. If there is a contractual obligation they are failing to live up to, then yes, I agree with you. But that's not how I understand it.

[wufwugy]

And what terms are these? I was under the impression that the terminology was pretty loose, something like "with the aim to spend 2% of GDP", which doesn't actually commit to doing so. If there is a contractual obligation they are failing to live up to, then yes, I agree with you. But that's not how I understand it.

It's 2% or more, and the terms aren't that disputed (at least in the US). From what I've seen from outside US, the terms aren't disputed.

[OngBonga]

Just because something isn't the worst possible form of a problem, doesn't mean it's not a problem.

But I'm talking from a mathematical average point of view. How else are you defining "fair share"?

It's important that you realise that your measure of "fair share" is not necessarily an accurate measure. I sense it's more based on rhetoric coming from the Trump camp, rather than any actual research and analysis to determine just how much they do chip in. It didn't take me long to think "they don't do so bad".

[BananaStand]

But I'm talking from a mathematical average point of view. How else are you defining "fair share"?

By all accounts, the US pays a portion of the costs that is disproportionate to the benefits it receives by being a member of this treaty.

That fucks up your average

Also, if the US is paying more, then it means someone is paying less, or in other words, an UN-fair share.

[OngBonga]

I don't think banana understands averages.

That fucks up your average

Not at all. It just means USA are above average. And I didn't say "mean", which is one kind of average. There's the median and mode, too.

Furthermore, different nations get different value from NATO. For nations like Estonia, it's all about deterring Russian influence. For nations like USA, it's more to do with maintaining geopolitical dominance. These motives hold different values. How much do you want America to carry on being the dominant superpower in the world? Enough to pay more than what you call a "fair share"? Do you really give a fuck about how much Lithuania value their security vs how much you value your nation's superpower status?

Iceland pay next to fuck all. Their contribution is $4.5m. They don't have an army though, and they only joined on the condition they would never be expected to form one. Their value is purely geographical. They don't need to contribute more, they would leave if they were expected to, because they know they would still enjoy the unconditional protection that being an important neighbour of the UK grants them. WWII showed us, and them, how important their island is. If Iceland is occupied by the enemy, then that is a direct threat to both USA and UK. So USA and UK have an obligation to financially prop up Iceland, simply because it's more in our interests than theirs for them to be a member state.

Iceland provides one example of a nation that doesn't pay their "fair share", and it demonstrates that it's not a simple exercise of saying "let's divide the cost equally". Not everyone enjoys the same value. That's why it's a diplomatic minefield.

Also, if the US is paying more, then it means someone is paying less, or in other words, an UN-fair share.

We're not sharing a pizza.

[OngBonga]

Well I'm finding it difficult to find the exact T&C, so I guess it depends on who you're listening to. I'm sure I read an article recently that basically argued that anyone spending more than they did the previous year was at least succeeding in getting closer to 2%, which was the implied expectation of "with the aim" or whatever the exact language is. The article certainly left me thinking that the language was loose enough that there was no actual obligation to spend 2% of GDP. I'd go further... if there is such an obligation, then why is it only a problem now Trump is in office? Why didn't NATO send debt collectors to Latvia when they first failed to pay their 2%?

[wufwugy]

Well I'm finding it difficult to find the exact T&C, so I guess it depends on who you're listening to. I'm sure I read an article recently that basically argued that anyone spending more than they did the previous year was at least succeeding in getting closer to 2%, which was the implied expectation of "with the aim" or whatever the exact language is. The article certainly left me thinking that the language was loose enough that there was no actual obligation to spend 2% of GDP. I'd go further... if there is such an obligation, then why is it only a problem now Trump is in office? Why didn't NATO send debt collectors to Latvia when they first failed to pay their 2%?

Because the US globalists want it that way. European dependency on the US is big thing in many different fields, not just military.

Trump is a change of foreign policy doctrine.

[BananaStand]

if there is such an obligation, then why is it only a problem now Trump is in office?

I'm surprised you don't see it. NATO's sworn enemy is Russia. So undermining NATO helps Trump's bro-mance with Putin. Being Putin's friend is the only reason Trump ran for president in the first place, duh.

[wufwugy]

Insightful analysis of Russia you might like

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/think-vladimir-putin/

[a500lbgorilla]

Insightful analysis of Russia you might like

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/think-vladimir-putin/

I prefer this kiddo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbrKLnh8wLA

[OngBonga]

I think it's more likely that Trump is just saying the kind of stupid shit that resonates with people like Banana, while knowing he has no way of actually enforcing it.

[VanDam]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartanntp

Thank you Captain Obvious.

[Poopadoop]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartanntp

Thank you Captain Obvious.

You'd think dying in the first month would cinch the worst start ever title.

[VanDam]

You'd think dying in the first month would cinch the worst start ever title.

I agree with you, no president could ever top the great William Henry Harrison.

[BananaStand]

So it's coming out now that the FBI knew about Russia's meddling for almost a year. Comey wanted to write an OP-ed about it, in hopes of heading it off before the election. The Obama administration wouldn't allow that. Instead, according to Farkas, they collected everything potentially damaging about Trump and made sure it was disseminated as widely as possible.

Surveillance, illegal unmasking, and leaks. All done on purpose.

And in nearly a year, there hasn't been a shred of incriminating evidence against Trump or his campaign staff.

Bad time to be a democrat.

[CoccoBill]

And in nearly a year, there hasn't been a shred of incriminating evidence made public against Trump or his campaign staff.

FTFY.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786

[BananaStand]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786

Got a third of the way through it before I fell asleep. Does it say anything interesting by the end?

[CoccoBill]

Got a third of the way through it before I fell asleep. Does it say anything interesting by the end?

Oops, sorry for not responding. Got a third of the way through it before I fell asleep.

[OngBonga]

lol BBC being linked as a reliable unbiased source.

[Savy]

lol BBC being linked as a reliable unbiased source.

The BBC is pretty great tbf, it tends to be terrible government that worsens it. How many news sites do you know that run articles about itself being bias?

I mean look at this, brilliant.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38890090

[CoccoBill]

Well shit if Fox is viewed as one I think they handily qualify.

[OngBonga]

Yeah I mean BBC > Fox but that really isn't saying much.

[OngBonga]

Fox being trash kinda goes without saying, the problem with the BBC is that a lot of people think it is an unbiased and reliable source of news.

[Jack Sawyer]

[Savy]

I'd also say that the BBC is a very reliable news source. Unbias, no, but I think that the idea of having no bias in any form of news is simply a myth and an impossibility.

[Poopadoop]

I think that the idea of having no bias in any form of news is simply a myth and an impossibility.

+1

There's a level of bias that goes from meh to worse to much worse to tinfoil hatters. BBC bias is pretty meh - it's pro-British but wtf do you expect? At least their announcers are just calmly reading the news without going into hysterics.

Fox is on the level of much worse - they don't have a single commentator who isn't right wing, but they aren't quite on the level of tinfoil hatters that some of the other 'news' sources are.

CNN is like Fox for the left. MSNBC is on the same level and possibly even a bit worse - afaict they are pretty much 24 hour anti-Trump propaganda.

What's funny is when someone from Fox interviews Trump and they come seriously close to criticizing him; that's when you know he's done something more or less indefensible.

[Savy]

What's funny is when someone from Fox interviews Trump and they come seriously close to criticizing him; that's when you know he's done something more or less indefensible.

I don't like this line of logic. It just means he's done something they don't like. It's like when people say "My friend doesn't really like x in general but even he liked specific thing belonging to x so it must be good", well no. That isn't true at all.

But yeah back to the point maybe aiming for little bias is a good thing in general but the more important thing is for people to be aware of bias and how it works. That shit is empowering. Assuming the news has no bias just results in there being a hole to exploit.

[Poopadoop]

I don't like this line of logic. It just means he's done something they don't like.

Nah. When he just does something they don't like they ignore it and talk about something else. When he does something completely idiotic or unhinged they can't just let it slide and they have to question him on it, however tactfully they might go about doing it.

[BananaStand]

they don't have a single commentator who isn't right wing,

False

[OngBonga]

BBC bias is pretty meh - it's pro-British but wtf do you expect?

It's massively pro-Tory, massively anti-Corbyn, and parrots whatever's going on over the other side of the pond, such as anti-Trump hysteria, and all the anti-Russia bullshit too. I can deal with a pro-British bias from a British agency, that's fine. But there should be no political bias, at least not systematic. It's ok for a journalist to have a poltical opinion, but they all have a pro-Tory agenda. There's no balance. An unbiased news source would employ journalists with various political opinions.

I don't expect unbiased reporting from individual journalists. But it's entirely possible for an agency to be unbiased, and they should strive to be. And journalists need to be honest about their agendas, rather than pretending (badly) to be unbiased.

[Savy]

It's massively pro-Tory, massively anti-Corbyn, and parrots whatever's going on over the other side of the pond, such as anti-Trump hysteria, and all the anti-Russia bullshit too. I can deal with a pro-British bias from a British agency, that's fine. But there should be no political bias, at least not systematic. It's ok for a journalist to have a poltical opinion, but they all have a pro-Tory agenda. There's no balance. An unbiased news source would employ journalists with various political opinions.

I don't expect unbiased reporting from individual journalists. But it's entirely possible for an agency to be unbiased, and they should strive to be. And journalists need to be honest about their agendas, rather than pretending (badly) to be unbiased.

I think this post is funny for two reasons.

1 - Literally everyone on the right says the BBC is left wing.

2 - You're going for the whole why can't people just be nice and be nice and I don't get why people are nasty just be nice angle which you should have grown out of by now.

I can go into a bit more substance but the BBC employs people who are right wing, have you never heard of Andrew Neil?

Aside from that yeah political influence on the BBC is bad but exists for very obvious reasons what we should be aiming for is getting rid of this, unfortunately what is happening is getting rid of the BBC.

[Savy]

Also actually look at what the BBC does in terms of it's scope, it's pretty mental. Yes front page BBC news may not be the most objective thing in the world but that is literally a snowflake on the iceberg that is what they do (I read a book recently hence the poetic literary skills).

[OngBonga]

1 - Literally everyone on the right says the BBC is left wing.

I don't even know what it means to be left wing anymore. Once it was socailist, you know, like worker's rights, NHS, railways run by government. Now it's batshit fucking naivity, open door immigration, shout down politics, call every rival a bigot. Yes, the BBC fits the bill there, but it doesn't fit the bill of "left wing" when it comes to Corbyn, which is what left wing used to mean.

I really don't know what left wing is anymore. The BBC is left wing yet pro-Conservative? How the fuck does that work? They're about as left wing as, ooh Labour before Corbyn, as in, slightly left wing, more centralist, and pretend centralist at that, like, right wing as fuck when it comes to business, yet left wing as fuck when it comes to immigration. I think it was a "centralist" party by average. The average of one and a billion is half a billion. Central. Labour now is true left, at least the left I understand. And that is not the direction of bias that the BBC show.

The BBC are under the control of government. They'll show bias to whichever party is in power. It's British state TV.

[Savy]

I really don't know what left wing is anymore.

Yeah, it shows. Goalposts move (you have the same problem with literally).

Most people in general and over time have been centre right. This has been true for basically all my life. Obama isn't really left wing, New Labour is a media device which was basically centre right politicians parading as if they had a conscience.

The BBC is very centralist (annoying so) it may be slightly liberal but that's a different story.

The reason that people have a problem with Corbyn is because he is actually left wing and literally no one else is. Most people who are part of trade unions aren't left wing it just so happens the people that run them are and have a good enough scam going on that they represent working people.

In terms of this the BBC mainly reports on what is happening so when there has been nothing but a hate campaign from both political parties (arguably more so than labour) it's very hard not to come across badly. Personally I think corbyn looked fantastic for quite a long time but has reacted to very strong press coverage by making himself look weak rather than pushing his message so I imagine he'll slowly drift out.

For the record I think Ed Miliband is actually quite representative of centre left but due to the political climate even he was pushed as being very left wing.

[OngBonga]

And you're abusing the word "literally". That's a word you're supposed to use when the thing you are saying is factual, it's not an alternative to "virtually", or perhaps "practically".

[Savy]

And you're abusing the word "literally". That's a word you're supposed to use when the thing you are saying is factual, it's not an alternative to "virtually", or perhaps "practically".

I hate people who say this (literally everyone who does is a bellend*). It is clearly used as a device to put emphasis on something. It has been used so for years, the dictionary literally* defines it as such.

*In this case I mean it in the very formal sense.

[OngBonga]

I hate people who say this (literally everyone who does is a bellend*). It is clearly used as a device to put emphasis on something. It has been used so for years, the dictionary literally* defines it as such.

*In this case I mean it in the very formal sense.

I'm sure I've told you loads of times... you literally take me too seriously. I mean this must be the fifth time I've said that exact shit when you've said literally before, which is literally your favourite word.

You're right about the bell end bit though.

The reason that people have a problem with Corbyn is because he is actually left wing and literally no one else is.

I suspect this concept will be challenged at the next election. Do I expect Corbyn to win? No, but I expect a better performance than Miliband, which would imply that a hard-left agenda resonates more with Labour voters than a centrist position.

Most people who are part of trade unions aren't left wing it just so happens the people that run them are and have a good enough scam going on that they represent working people.

This is a fair observation though. I don't think it matters though. Voters are what ultimately matter, not trade unionists.

[Jack Sawyer]

The US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to eliminate ISP privacy rules, following the Senate vote to take the same action last week. The legislation to kill the rules now heads to President Donald Trump for his signature or veto.

The White House issued a statement today supporting the House's action, and saying that Trump's advisors will recommend that he sign the legislation. That would make the death of the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules official.


The rules issued by the FCC last year would have required home Internet and mobile broadband providers to get consumers' opt-in consent before selling or sharing Web browsing history, app usage history, and other private information with advertisers and other companies. But lawmakers used their authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to pass a joint resolution ensuring that the rules "shall have no force or effect" and that the FCC cannot issue similar regulations in the future.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...wsing-history/

Get the lube ready. Republicans at their finest.

The House’s vote Tuesday approving a resolution that would allow internet service providers to sell data about their customers’ browsing history split nearly along party lines. The final vote was 215-205, with nine members not voting.
The Democrats voted against the resolution as a block. On the Republican side, 15 members split from their party and opposed the bill.

The resolution — which was approved by the Senate last week — blocks a Federal Communications Commission rule that would bar ISPs from selling customer data, including app usage, browsing history, even Social Security numbers, to marketers and others. Widely praised by privacy and consumer advocates when it was finalized last year, the rule hadn’t yet taken effect. Now — assuming President Trump signs it, as he’s expected to — it won’t.
And not only that, but under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, which was the mechanism used by Congress to negate the rule, no such rule can ever be issued again.

Welcome to 2017. Everything is for sale.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...t-privacy-res/

[Jack Sawyer]

At least in Minnesota, something is being done about it

Legislation approved by the Minnesota House and Senate this week would prevent ISPs from collecting personal information without written approval from customers. The quick action came in response to the US House and Senate voting to eliminate nationwide rules that would have forced ISPs to get consent from Americans before using or selling Web browsing history and app usage history for advertising purposes.When the Minnesota Senate on Wednesday discussed a budget bill, it added an amendment that says ISPs may not "collect personal information from a customer resulting from the customer's use of the telecommunications or Internet service provider without express written approval from the customer." The amendment would also prohibit ISPs from refusing to provide services to customers who do not approve collection of personal information.
The Minnesota House added a similar amendment to its own budget bill on Tuesday, according to a Pioneer Press article.
Democratic state Senator Ron Latz proposed the amendment in the Senate. While the amendment doesn't specifically mention browsing history, the text may be broad enough to cover such collection, and a statement from Latz said his intent is to prevent ISPs from selling "browsing history, health data, financial information, online purchase data, app usage and geo-location."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-in-minnesota/

[MadMojoMonkey]

Nice job, Minnesota.

It's not often I see a legislature think fast on its feet.

IDK if this will be effective, but I gotta hand it to them for the swift response.

[Jack Sawyer]

The Establishment fought back. Hard.

[Savy]

I got bored of that video about half way through.

So the people that pay for adverts to be shown on videos aren't happy that their adds are shown on random youtube videos. You don't have a right to make money using someones website. I think it's perfectly reasonable (in fact I think it's insane to think otherwise) that a corporation like coke don't want their ads appearing on videos that talk about certain topics. It has nothing to do with not wanting to advertise terrorist videos it straight up wouldn't want advertising on anything to do with terrorism.

It's like people don't understand the whole point of advertising & branding yet because they are losing money it must be a problem.

[Jack Sawyer]

I got bored of that video about half way through.


So the people that pay for adverts to be shown on videos aren't happy that their adds are shown on random youtube videos. You don't have a right to make money using someones website. I think it's perfectly reasonable (in fact I think it's insane to think otherwise) that a corporation like coke don't want their ads appearing on videos that talk about certain topics. It has nothing to do with not wanting to advertise terrorist videos it straight up wouldn't want advertising on anything to do with terrorism.


It's like people don't understand the whole point of advertising & branding yet because they are losing money it must be a problem.

They took what happened to a handful of videos, and blew it out of proportion. A literal handful of videos; it’s telling when they kept showing the same examples over and over. Because it was truly difficult to find actual examples.


That where that dude in the AdAge article comes in play. Basically an extortionist, willing to tarnish the name of the brand because they refuse to pay up.


More importantly, this is a power play. Old media feels cornered. People just don’t give a shit about them anymore. So they have started to wage war against the new media. Youtube is all fun and Ames when it’s about cat videos, but as you can clearly see, it’s political commentators that take the brunt of this over the top censorship and response. If whatever you talk about in your vid is political in nature, boom! Instant demonetization, does not matter the context.


Also, advertisers look for any excuse to get better leverage in ad deal negotiations.


No one would ever associate Coca Cola with isis, because it randomly showed up as a preroll ad on a video with 2,000 views. However, Toyota trucks is different, as they have been known to parade around in caravans full of these. No preroll ad needed for that one …

[Jack Sawyer]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...y-commitments/

Instead of the FCC continuing to enforce net neutrality rules, Pai “wants Internet service providers to voluntarily agree to maintain an open Internet,” Reuters reported yesterday, citing three sources briefing on the meeting.

“To preserve the basic tenets of net neutrality, the plans would require broadband providers to pledge to abide by net neutrality principles such as no blocking or paid prioritization of Internet traffic,” the Journal wrote. “That would allow the FTC to go after violators for deceptive or unfair trade practices.”


Reuters said that Pai discussed his preliminary plan with “major telecommunications trade groups” but did not identify which ones. "The officials briefed on the meeting said Pai suggested companies commit in writing to open Internet principles and including them in their terms of service, which would make them binding," Reuters wrote.


Even if these commitments are legally binding, enforcing net neutrality guidelines could become more complicated under the FTC. With the current rules, customers or companies can file a complaint with the FCC and get a decision from the government's expert agency on communications networks, potentially putting a stop to abusive behavior. The FTC uses a different process for enforcing rules. Instead of writing extensive rules and deciding whether an ISP has violated them, the FTC files lawsuits against companies over unfair or deceptive acts or practices, letting a court make the decision.

This would actually be funny if it wasn't so sad

[Savy]

Nothing you've said there is a counter to what I was saying. I'm sure "old media" would very much like youtube gone & I'm sure they love what's happening.

[Jack Sawyer]

Nothing you've said there is a counter to what I was saying. I'm sure "old media" would very much like youtube gone & I'm sure they love what's happening.

I thought this would

Also, advertisers look for any excuse to get better leverage in ad deal negotiations.


No one would ever associate Coca Cola with isis, because it randomly showed up as a preroll ad on a video with 2,000 views. However, Toyota trucks is different, as they have been known to parade around in caravans full of these. No preroll ad needed for that one …

[Savy]

The leverage bit is true (it is for anything though really and isn't that relevant).

The second bit is just wrong. Advertisers care about the content that they are associated with to neurotic levels. I didn't say it makes a strong permanent link but it does create a link and over time it strengthens that association. This is an association they don't want, so why would they pay for it?

When something is entirely driven by ads (be that youtube ads or video sponsors) to not think that those ads begin to dictate the content is madness.

[Savy]

A good example is wrestling.

The money they get per view from ads shown in the spot they run is much less than that of other content in general. This is because the content they are producing is something that advertisers wants to be less associated with. Why would this be true if what I'm saying is wrong? It wouldn't be.

[Jack Sawyer]

Bruh, when I say this

No one would ever associate Coca Cola with isis, because it randomly showed up as a preroll ad on a video with 2,000 views. However, Toyota trucks is different, as they have been known to parade around in caravans full of these. No preroll ad needed for that one …

It's because the chance of that happening is the chance of a total solar eclipse. Translation: 1 in a million.

It took one dude inventing an algorithm, to catch it when it happens to show it as a shining example of shit going down. And bringing this "evidence" to the WSJ.

Just as what happened with pewdiepie, these are targeted attacks. This whole ad thing is a non-issue that never happens, and yet they did catch that one unicorn with an algorithm, and blew it completely out of proportion. The thing is not just about YouTube; it's about Google. They are trying their best to take ads away from Google.

Think about the children!



More relevant quotes explaining a little more

However, it’s important to point out that Google hasn’t been idly sitting by.Here are some steps they’ve taken in the past to combat these types of ads and videos on their platform:

• In 2012, Google removed 640 videos promoting terrorism on YouTube
• In 2016, Google removed nearly 2 billion scammy ads from their ad platforms
• Also in 2016, according to Reuters, “…internet companies including Alphabet Inc’s YouTube, Twitter Inc, Facebook Inc and CloudFlare held a call to discuss options, including a content-blocking system put forward by the private Counter Extremism Project.”

Additionally, as Tien Nguyen, Director of Technology at CPC Strategy pointed out, YouTube takes user feedback extremely seriously and has dedicated staff members who review flagged videos.

http://www.cpcstrategy.com/blog/2017...d-controversy/

[Savy]

It's like what was happening was companies were purchasing ad time because they wanted to advertise on a channel like zoella and instead of just getting their ads run on that channel what was actually happening is they were buying general youtube advertising. As a result smaller channels (no one wanted the ad space for) were able to earn money too.

Those who were stupid enough to think this was a long term solution and a job for life are now getting screwed over because it turns out companies don't want to advertise on them. Boohoo.

[Jack Sawyer]

Don't like your particular ad on a particular topic? Just

[Savy]

Don't like your particular ad on a particular topic? Just

This is the correct way to go about it and I imagine they'll get better and better at it as time goes on and their algorithms get better. It has the exact same effect as I'm talking about though.

[Jack Sawyer]

This is the correct way to go about it and I imagine they'll get better and better at it as time goes on and their algorithms get better. It has the exact same effect as I'm talking about though.

So problem solved, right?

It's like what was happening was companies were purchasing ad time because they wanted to advertise on a channel like zoella and instead of just getting their ads run on that channel what was actually happening is they were buying general youtube advertising. As a result smaller channels (no one wanted the ad space for) were able to earn money too.


Those who were stupid enough to think this was a long term solution and a job for life are now getting screwed over because it turns out companies don't want to advertise on them. Boohoo.

Ok now see the forest, not the trees.

[Savy]

It doesn't have anything to do with promoting terrosism, talking about terrorism is the issue for ads.

Same for loads of topics. Race, LGBT, politics, drama. All things that advertisers have no control over their videos being shown on and they probably don't want to be associated with in certain aspects and if they do they'd like it done in a much more controlled manner than people being able to upload anything they like about it.

[Savy]

The concept that anything is going to ruin google when they are an advertisers wet dream is making a mountain out of a grain of sand.