Sure, in that case let's use Cop City in Georgia. That feels more like "authoritarian state seeks to quash dissent". Plenty of grey area there, plenty of overreach by the State to shut them up.
You realize there's a 3rd way which is "all the cultures/empires are corrupt and problematic" right? It's like the GOP/DEM debate in the US: Yes, there are 2 poles, but that doesn't mean they're the only possible options, just what exists currently. I don't really give a fuck what the Chinese citizens think of their empire or mine, I think both are failing the world and doing the same shit (concentrating power/resources in the hands of an unaccountable minority).
I was talking about how most people think. The large majority of people in each empire would say the other is worse, they will disagree on why but agree on that. You saying they all suck to be honest isn't much better. A more nuanced approach is needed.
What would you suggest is the "more nuanced approach"? Also, I am not some weird .1% fringe based on any polling, there's plenty of people who hate their own government and can see advantages to that of their "enemy" even if they don't want to defect.
Negative partisanship is the major driver in most politics because, again, the State fails to provide for the citizens, without fail, in every system, if it would infringe upon the ability of the State to amass/maintain power. It's easier to say "at least I'm not that guy" as you trample on the populous, so we agree that everyone loves a scapegoat. I can do plenty of nuance, but you started at generalizations and I was refuting that first as that's all I have to go on here.
The fact that they can't go to the court and say "It pisses me off that this guy is doing what he's doing" and instead have to, ya know, try a case based on the actual laws that exist, seems to be confusing you about what "direct legal action" is.
The article's headline is the claim: "Flock Wants the Most Detailed Map of Its Surveillance Cameras Taken Offline"
The basis for this is an undisclosed trademark letter from a 3rd party. The company in question may or may not want the map taken down. However, the article offers scant evidence for the headline claim. That is why it is clickbait. It promises something large and delivers something minimal.
The security researcher in question has certainly made a splash however. Promising new levels of people mad at Flock is definitely the way to create some bona fides.
Is it your opinion that the letter was likely not sent on behalf of Flock, and this Doppel company is lying about being affiliated with Flock?
If so, what do they stand to gain by doing this? Is it even possible for a company to file a trademark letter on behalf of trademark owner without being affiliated?
I have no opinion one way or another. My first guess is that they have an IP protection firm that goes out and protects their trademarks like any normal company. The action is content neutral in the sense that it doesn't matter if it is the official Flock fan club or hate club. Is it more likely that some evildoer at Flock is twisting their mustache saying "I know how to eliminate this map site—the Streisand Effect!"
The article makes a strong claim and then provides weak substance. An accurate headline is "Flock Map Website Sent a Trademark Notice."
Let's assume that Flock wants to take the website down. How do you think they should go about doing it?
If the site does get taken down due to this trademark dispute and Flock has the deniability of "well it was just the company we hire to do trademark protection, it's not our fault, we didn't do this intentionally" didn't they achieve their aims with plausible deniability that you are affording them here?
If the site has trademark issues, it is irrelevant if the company has the site's removal as a goal or not. The site could address the trademark issues by altering its infringing materials, or if deciding the claims are spurious, legally challenging or ignoring them, and move on. The site's security consultancy proprietor has more to gain by claiming it has forbidden data.
Highly unlikely (but hey, anything's possible when you're flirting with an authoritarian regime). They would need to demonstrate that the map was made TO destroy cameras if to have real merit.
I'm old enough to remember that the original pitch to get people to pay for cable TV (which was a big barrier in the 1960s/70s) was "Yes, there's a monthly fee - but no ads!). The only time I see cable TV is when I'm staying in a motel, and I'm just astonished by the ad load.
If you think "high earners with company subsidized plans"(where I assume you fall based on the general demographics of this site, but correct me if I'm wrong) were the target audience of the ACA, you're right to be pissed. It was for the un/underinsured, and people with preexisting conditions.
But your comparison is wrong, because you can...elect to not use the service. You could pay less for less coverage (so like, buying food without paying for a delivery fee because you don't need the convenience). Also, the individual mandate was killed (sucking funding out of the whole program), so you could opt out of the service entirely.
Nobody is forcing you to have insurance (at a federal level).
...only because the company is committing wage theft to subsidize costs. I don't think it feels reasonable to say "Your employer has to meet certain wages, but they didn't so you're a sucker".
If you can't pay the wage you're required to then the whole house of cards starts coming down because now you can't create a large enough network to meet demand, which shrinks demand, which increases costs, which makes it accessible to fewer and fewer high paid consumers.
Like a lot of capitalism "it's better than starving to death in the streets" is the appeal of the job and nothing more. Anything else is a paid message brought to you by UberDoorHub.
I mean, that's what the State tells you to stop uprising, but there has never in history been a state that served the people it governed, it serves the people who govern. It's all just big gangs with weapons, and sometimes one gang takes over another's territory. Everything else is window dressings to prevent other gangs from forming.
If you want to split hairs as to what the responsibility of the Chairman of the Board of Directors does, you win.
IDK, maybe I'm a mushbrain but it seems like if someone said they're the chairman of the board, and you told them to their face "well it's not like you run the company..." they'd finish their drink and go talk to someone else for the rest of the night.
reply