SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the they-can-still-screw-over-the-rest-of-the-world dept.
Fraud, scams, and "unfair" terms and conditions all need to be cleaned up on Facebook, Twitter, and Google+, the European Commission has said—warning the US firms that any failure to comply with the order will lead to sanctions.
It comes after the trio of free content ad networks were put on notice in November last year, when Brussels' officials asked the companies to address two areas of concern.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google—all of which are routinely blasted by regulators and lawmakers in Europe—have one month to submit proposals for how they plan to comply with the EU's demands. If their offers come up short against the bloc's regulatory framework, then consumer authorities could threaten to take enforcement action, the commission said.
"Given the growing importance of online social networks it is time to make sure that our strong EU rules, that are there to protect consumers from unfair practices, are complied with in this sector," said Brussels' justice commissioner, Vera Jourová.
"It is not acceptable that EU consumers can only call on a court in California to resolve a dispute. Nor can we accept that users are deprived of their right to withdraw from an online purchase. Social media companies also need to take more responsibility in addressing scams and fraud happening on their platforms."
The commission—citing the Unfair Contract Terms Directive—wants the companies' terms of service to "be brought into conformity with European consumer law."
Source: ArsTechnica
(Score: 1) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 21 2017, @06:58AM (5 children)
It was supposed to address the "sadness of the truth" - which I argue it is the least sad of all other alternatives.
Any demonstration will need to consider the alternatives (even when they are absurd) and check the "level of sadness" to demonstrate the optimality of one alternative.
Less optimal, but less sad. If we think that tyrants and dictators and people with Orange Comb-overs can take power an rule over otherwise normal people, that would be sad, but not as sad if those people did not have to allow such a dictatorship. So you see, absolute power is not so sad as power that is generated by the consent of the governed. Do you think the Kim dynasty in North Korea is legitimate? Maybe not, but the people there certainly think it is, and so they get the government they deserve, the one that is starving them to death. They do not have to accept it. But they do. That is the sad.
This is completely off the mark here, but stick with me. You know the myth of Oedipus? Yes, the son of Thebes in ancient Greece! As the story goes, when he was born, his parents inquired of the Temple at Delphi what would become of him. The Oracle said: "He will kill his father, and marry his mother." Not like becoming a Doctor or a Laywer, or the King of Thebes! So they had him carted off by a shephard to be abandoned in the mountains. Infanticide used to be very much more common, until idiots like Runaway started to push themselves all up in to how priests could get willing altar boys. . .
But, of course, Oedipus did not die! Found by a shepherd from the other side of the mountains, the Corinth side, where the king and queen had been trying to have a baby with no success. But here was one that was just being thrown away, and the only damage was where his heels had been pierced, in order to tie them together and make him easier to carry. But enough of that.
Oedipus is adopted by the King and Queen of Corinth. But as is often the case in situations like this, the figure out how to make babies on their own! Or, at least, it works, now. So Oedipus ends up with a bunch of younger siblings. And they do what siblings do, they taunt: you are not really part of this family, you're weird, you must have been adopted!" Ah, siblings, the cruelest and most loving of all people. But it moves Oedipus to go to the oracle at Delphi again, where he asks: "Are my parents my real parents?" The Oracle responds: "You will kill your father and marry your mother." Oedipus does not think this is a good thing.
OK, here is the point, and it is just like Anthropogenic Global Warming, for those keeping score. Oedipus thinks he is smart enough to prevent the Oracle's prophecy from coming true. "All I have to do," he thinks., "is never go home! Then the prophecy can never come true!" Yes, Oedipus, one smart cookie, smarter than khallow, smarter than Runaway, and need I go on?
So, what happens? The young man from Corinth sets out down the road, to Thebes. He meets a chariot that will not yield the right of way, we end up with a road rage incidence in Pre-historic Greece. You know who the guy was. Oedipus didn't, at this point. Later he will. This is why we call it "tragedy". There is a Sphinx, a riddle, and Oedipus gets to marry the Queen of Thebes. Prophecy fulfilled.
But that is not the point of the tragedy. The point is not that fate is inescapable, that your ultimate doom awaits you no matter what you do. It is more insidious, and sadder, than that. The point of Greek tragedy is that precisely by attempting to avoid your fate, you become the instrument of your fate: It is ALL Oedipus' own fault that he killed his father and married his own mother! (The four kids they had, I will leave to another time, but Antigone Rules, y'all)
So it may be sad that good people are oppressed, but the point is that if they are able to be oppressed, they are not good people, and thus are the instruments of their own oppression. That is much more sad than if such injustice could happen by accident, or by a Real Estate Developer being elected President.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday March 21 2017, @09:52AM (4 children)
Really? And this is a pure logical, thus inexorable, conclusion of the Oedipus tragedy, eh?
The US people killed their father and fu... ummm... married their mother and procreated a petty Agent Orange wannabe dictator; all the while being busy trying to be safe from terrorism, hating to pay taxes and wasting their time watching "Transformers", attending comicons and consumer electronics shows, posting their "likes" on FaeceBook and brainfarts on Twitter... And all of these makes them "not good people", is that's what you say?
Magister, better give a definition of "good people" before engage in an argumentation, lest you commit the "No True Scotsman" sin.
Maybe I'm wrong, but your debating line seems to be based on the definition of "Good people vote as I think is good".
While I may agree with your electoral preferences (thanks God I don't need to agree and neither to disagree with them), but sure as hell I'm not going to accept an argumentation based on the Oedipus tragedy, no matter how witty and grammatically correct such an argumentation would come (not that I'll refrain from enjoying the style even if still refusing the message as baseless).
And last... hypothesize that, somehow, you would manage to convince a significant enough number of people to follow you - will your followers, convinced by Oedipus tragedy to not vote Orange, be better (as in "gooder") than the followers of Agent Orange which were convinced by the "fake news" argumentation?
Because the way it came, both argumentation reduce to "Trust me" (one: "Because I'm witty and know heaps about history and culture"; the other "Because I'm a deal maker, tax breaker and too sexy for my pus.. er, cat, too sexy for my hat")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @01:27PM (3 children)
The US people killed their father and fu... ummm... married their mother
More like grabbed her by the pussy.
I think Aristarchus' definition of "good person" here is more like vigilance vs. acceptance. There was an old dude who liked to smoke weed and grab his slaves by the pussy that wrote, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
If one accepts tyranny, then who could possibly help them? Democracy can't be violently imposed (not to summon the AnCap fellow). If one does not accept tyranny, then it's possible meet violent force with violent force. Something like that inspiring speech delivered by Mel Gibson's William Wallace, before he was captured and executed. When you're old and dying in your bed, are you going to be as happy with your life if you rolled over and accepted tyranny as you would be dying in glorious battle fighting for the right to live unmolested?
Personally, at least, I take the glorious battle option, if it comes to that with Agent Orange (I like that nickname!). Though it's been sort of difficult realizing I let myself get so out of shape I need to completely retrain my body. Googmytwitface at least leave me in peace when I don't wish to avail myself of their services. The Orange One... here's hoping it doesn't come to FEMA concentration camps. Republicans can haul my cold, dead corpse to a concentration camp if that's where their god thinks I should be.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 21 2017, @03:28PM (2 children)
Cool.
Although... here's one nagging fact: Agent Orange unexpectedly won while still playing by the (letter of the) rules; this means somehow he got elected, vigilance in regards with the respect/observation of the rules would not have prevented the outcome.
So... vigilance against what/who? And when was the best moment... ummm.... vigorous vigilant actions where required?
That's one of the fathers they "killed" by forgetting about him in their daily sheepish consumption.
So far, USA didn't go quite all the way to tyranny. Even if only to the fact that the two... umm... "masters" (political creatures and corporations) have an uneasy love-hate relation but maintain their individuality and drive/interests.
I'd say the USA people were stupidly tricked in accepting subservience. If rephrasing your question to fit this description, my answer would be:
"For certain, stupidity is NOT cured by demagogy, no matter how witty or cultured. Teaching or creating critical thinking abilities may be a start".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:32AM (1 child)
c0lo, in his near infinite wisdom, says:
"For certain, stupidity is NOT cured by demagogy, no matter how witty or cultured. Teaching or creating critical thinking abilities may be a start".
And Aristarchus, in his much below infinite pedantry, has to point out that the word is "demagogery"! From the Greek,(duh), δῆμος, and also the Greek, lead: άγω, so δημαγωγός, leader of the people. This term has developed negative connotations that I think it does not deserve, because I think, that even Trump voters cannot be lead into the black hole that is Paul Ryan's Ayn Randian universe where no one but the rich, and Ayn Rand, get health care, because that is just how the chips, the Koch chips, have fallen. As the great American demagogue said, (no, it is not Donald, his hands are too small), "You can fool some of the people all the time, [Ironically, we call these people "Republicans" today!], and you can fool all of the people some of the time [today we refer to this as "Ronald Reagan"], but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time!" This is, of course, what Trump is counting on. But this is how America has improved on Greek democracy; it is not possible for a clown like Trump to lead the entire nation into something so stupid as attacking Poland. What? He just tweeted that? Oh My God, and My God Is Not Polish, or MGINP, for short, for demagogic purposes. Oh, just forget the whole thing. Paul Ryan for ex-congressman. Wisconsin, seriously, CheeseHeads is one thing, but this idiot? Primary him, if you want the Republican party to live! And even if you don't! Win-win situation! Seriously.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 23 2017, @11:18AM
Magister, you convinced me that demagoguery, at its peak, it truly an art form. A form, that is... but a form which allows the spectator to recognize it as her/his own and then, imperfect as human are, fill it with her/his own content.
It is, if you allow me a metaphor, like an artful colouring book - everyone can fill in the outlines their own choice of colours and the result will look good for her/him. Maybe it will look good for others with the same taste in colour matching, but certainly not appreciated by all.
At least, in the part above, you made it easy for me to scrap away your choice of colours and recognize the outline as drawn by the original demagogue.
Unfortunately, on this picture, the colours seeped so much that the outline (if there was one) is no longer visible to me.
I can appreciate the colourful exuberance of the result, but I can get no coherent message from the picture.
---
(english language is crazy: "demagogic purposes" is correct, but "demagogy" is flawed. I'm left wondering why "demagoguerical purposes" is flawed - grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford