Replace Hollywood/Disney with Twitch and nothing is different.
You still need to get lucky to be famous on Twitch (or Youtube) for your distribution channel and have enough influence that whatever you make, people will care about it.
Also they don't own their audience in this case, Twitch does.
Having 1000+ services seems like an overkill for an ecommerce company. I certainly hope they aren't doing something silly like a service for each payment type or a service to manage inventory and another service to manage orders.
I have no clue if it's too much but allegro is biggest ecomerce website in Poland and it works amazingly. I'm currently in Spain and I'm forced to use Amazon and oh lord - I can't event star to wrap my head aourd how on earth people can use that crap - it is slow AF, it's search functionality is abysmal and filtering results almost doesn't. exist... o_X
2010-2012 Tumblr was truly a magical experience. It wasn't a social media for your real life friends or news, it was just a place for fandoms to share tons of gifs. And there was a lot of creativity once people started sharing their own art as well.
It's such a shame that we probably won't have another website like this again. I guess some of that stuff has moved to Discord now or sub-communities within Twitter, Reddit, etc but it's just not the same.
It also makes it easier for states to expand access to abortion, including expanding it up through the 3rd trimester. Just today, CA put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to allow up to the final minute abortions.
That ruling gave power back to the people and state legislatures. It benefit blue states as much as red.
So 9 unelected lifetime appointees should be able to dictate laws, but 538 democratically elected representatives that change every 2 years based in the will of the people shouldn’t?
It's about giving power back to the states, and in turn the people. So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority.
> power back to the states, and in turn the people
That sounds quite Stalinist. The people are not the state.
> So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority.
Right, so your federal government is a centralised Hobbesian leviathan, but state government is not? How is state government not centralised? It's just centralised at a different level.
You know what would not be centralised? Allowing individuals bodily autonomy. Let them decide whether they want an abortion, not have them be forced to carry foetuses to term against their will.
On the particular of abortion, in terms of liberty, the baby's liberty must be considered, not only the mother's.
In the general case of state vs federal sovereignty, state sovereignty is closer to the individual is and more malleable/escapable than a federal sovereign, and is thus preferable (state sovereignty was the original ideal of the United States and the founders go on at length about the benefits of this arrangement.)
>The police couldn't touch the protest for weeks not because of inaction but because your right to protest is a human right. They required the national emergency to remove our right to protest in order to label the protest illegal.
So you are saying under Canadian law, if you protest and do something illegal like blocking roads, destroying property, etc then Canadian police can't do anything? So if I go back in history and look at other protests in Canada like the ones against the pipelines for example, then I will see that the police didn't act against them?
>you protest and do something illegal like blocking roads
Any protest of any respectable size will block the roads it chooses to march in, every climate change protest and every gay pride blocks the roads, never see people complaining about those.
>destroying property
What is the property that was destroyed by the protest in question?
> Any protest of any respectable size will block the roads it chooses to march in, every climate change protest and every gay pride blocks the roads, never see people complaining about those.
Ottawa gets protests for left- and right- wing causes on a weekly basis. One of the biggest protests we see is a yearly "bus all the catholic school children to parliament hill to protest abortion", and it goes by without a hitch every year.
Anyways, protests last for maybe an afternoon or day or two at most and involve people standing on parliament hill or marching around the downtown core, not blockading the city core and constantly harassing the people who live there for multiple weeks.
I see this word used multiple times in people arguing against the protest, never with any details about the concrete instances of the supposed harassment. Noise is not harassment, any activity with a large group of people is going to annoy and disturb the place they happen to choose to congregate, this is not even specific to protests.
Actually, just to be clear, what exactly did the protestors do besides blocking the road and making a lot of noise?
>protests last for maybe an afternoon or day or two at most
So
(1) The duration of a protest and
(2) How much inconvenience it causes to the locals
are the two factors that determine whether it's a legitimate protest or not ?
Noise is 100% absolutely definitely harassment, especially when it is over 100dB within people's homes, and every hour of the day for weeks on end. Why do you say it's not? It was loud enough to cause permanent damage and was unending for a significant portion of the occupation, until a citizen managed to get a court injunction.
The level of noise, the duration of the noise, and the tools they were using to create that noise (including multiple actual train horns) were all illegal under existing laws, as well.
You mean they did this at night? Wow. And police let this go on for multiple nights? When sleep deprivation is done to alleged terrorists, Amnesty International calls it torture.
Because it's not, harassment is usually implied to be personal, involving hostile contact between the harasser(s) and the harassed. Did the protestors shout insults or threats at you or other neighborhood residents ?
>all illegal under existing laws
Do we really need to constantly circle back to the point that protests have to be lawful ? they do not, protesting is about breaking the ordinary and disrupting the status quo, that's the point, especially when the people protesting feel cornered and without a lawful retort to perceived injustices.
Every action against the government will hurt the population to some degree or another, 100db noise seems pretty mild compared to the private property damage valued in the millions that large-scale protests usually cause. Prioritising comfort over protest is implicitely siding with the government, which is your right off course, as long as you're explicit about it.
Edit : 100db noise turns out to be a deadly serious matter, I apologize to the person I'm replying to for making light of it.
I still believe it's wrong to use this as justification for quashing a protest, there is a whole spectrum of solutions from reasoning with the protestors to wearing ear covers, but I can better understand and empathize with the antagonism most of the affected city's residents hold toward the protests.
At 100dB, a safe dose is about 15 minutes. Blowing horns all day for weeks on end poses a significant risk of severe hearing loss. Per affected person, a hearing loss payout can be up to around $100k. Given the ~1M people in Ottawa, I would expect the physical damage to persons in the area to exceed the millions of dollars in your "[usual] large-scale protest."
Let's flip it - can your neighbour block the end your driveway and lay on their car horn 24/7 for weeks straight if they say they're protesting the government? Bonus points for harassing you if you walk by
I wouldn't like it, but I also wouldn't call it an illegal protest because I don't like it.
Truth be told I've rarely encountered a protest I liked - they are always annoying (even the ones I agree with are annoying - they block traffic to friends and foes equally).
It comes with the territory, and it's something you must tolerate to have a democracy.
If the government had stopped at halting the horns, very few people would object, and even then not seriously. A lack of a horn does not prevent a protest.
But that's not what Canada did, is it? They not just remove the protest they froze bank accounts of supporters. That's not democracy. That's a government very very threatened by the protest.
If Canada does not wipe the slate clean and vote away every single politician who was culpable in this, then Canada is not the place it's been advertised to be.
I mean, aside from the noise torture they shut down a city's downtown core for 3 weeks, continually threatened, harassed, and assaulted it's residents, released multiple statements and videos calling for overthrowing and arresting elected leaders (especially women / people of colour), and the municipal police force proved itself incapable of enforcing the law and keeping Canadians safe. Not to mention the other blockades that halted more than $300mil/day in trade.
> So you are saying under Canadian law, if you protest and do something illegal like blocking roads
Every protest in history has “done something illegal” like blocking roads or disrupting access to public spaces, at an absolute minimum. So if you have the right to protest, then you have the right to do those things that would otherwise be illegal within the context of a protest, or you don’t have the right to protest at all.
Right so then let's continue the thought process. You are saying under Canadian laws, if a group of people are protesting, they can break whatever laws they want within the context of the protest and the police can't do anything? And if we look historically within Canada, we will see that this holds true? That the police never shut down any protest without emergency laws being enabled?
I am saying that protest by its nature is supposed to be disruptive on some level, and laws prohibit the type of disruptive behaviour typical of a protest clearly don’t apply _if_ you have a right to protest.
Blocking roads and occupying public spaces are some of the most fundamental features of a protest, so if you have a right to protest, then you certainly have a right to do that within the context of a protest.
If a protestor decides to commit a crime during their protesting, like destroying property, arson, assault… then they should still have full criminal liability for that. Nobody is disagreeing with you on that point. To me it seems you are simply trying to invent some contention out of nothing, in order to fit your view that the entire protest itself is illegal.
I never claimed the entire protest is illegal. I'm just trying to question the notion that in Canada when you protest and despite how disruptive you are, the Canadian police can't touch you or stop you without invoking emergency laws. I haven't seen it in recent history so I wonder why it's the case now.
To be fair, no one is complaining that they protested illegally. The complaint is that the protesters actively targeted unrelated civilians and made life a living hell for them for weeks on end.
I don't think you would say that it would be ok for protesters to physically attack random civilians because "it's a protest and that's their protest strategy". There are obviously limits to the illegal behaviour generally allowed to protests.
Again, people aren't complaining that they protested illegally, they are complaining that the protesters are physically and verbally harassing them beyond every reasonable degree.
The quote you brought out does not say that an illegal protest is the basis for using emergency powers. It says that an illegal occupation is the basis.
We have had many many "illegal" protests where streets have been blocked temporarily and there were no calls to break out the emergency act.
For now yes, but I would say it's really meant as replacement for Instagram rather than Facebook. So videos only seems fine compared to a service that was primarily for pictures.
They can always expand, but I feel like these social media services usually have a hard time pivoting to a different medium after their initial success.
TikTok feels like YouTube. It has hundreds of millions of users, but only a small fraction will ever post anything. Unless the dynamics of TikTok radically change, I can’t see it being an Instagram replacement.
I assume none of the existing regulations or laws that involve public companies apply to DAOs? Like can you pool the money and then do nothing or go against what was agreed upon?
You assume wrong. The things regulators have authority over are rather broadly defined, and the regulators will and have rather eagerly pursue novel attempts to avoid regulation. The best that one running such things could hope for is a period of indecision.
This though seems pretty cut and dry “is a security” and all sorts of compliance will apply early.
How is fraud handled in this case? Name and address is relatively easily accessible public info. Do they notify the person that there is an invoice against them before they ship the product?
Same as other supply chain blockchain efforts, a single (usually still decentralized) public ledger indicating ownership. Though not all are aimed at decentralization, more at creating a public ledger with some cryptographic methods used to ensure its validity.
Are there big issues with the current system that exists today to prove ownership of a property you bought? Is real estate fraud common enough?
I never went through buying property before so I honestly don't know, but most of the people I know just hired a lawyer and got it done and it was never a thing they had to think about afterward.
There is potential use for storing the history of real estate ownership in a more robust way, as part of doing a title search as a prerequisite for a real estate transaction. But that won't get rid of the need for title insurance, which exists exactly to offset the issues and dispute around ownership and liens against real estate that put undo burden on real estate transactions. And it's probably folly to encode into law that a single "blockchain" of real estate transactions is final and authoritative without any kind of legal review, which is also why title insurance exists. It would make things more robust and perhaps faster to verify, but it doesn't get rid of the social (non-technical) issues around real estate ownership transfer, either historically or at the time of the transaction.
Title insurance might be cheaper if your county clerk’s title register were cryptographically verifiable by outside parties? Though that just requires a Merkle tree, not a blockchain
Not that I know of, just describing what I've seen others push it for. With supply chain, in general, it has some potential value (for auditing, in particular) but for large things like cars and homes we have (usually) government mediated records, and they're also usually public or semi-public (accessible with some effort, but not freely available on the public Internet).
I've talked to someone who worked on a (non-NFT-based!) solution for this in developing countries -- it turns out that yes, the cost to bribe officials to falsify documents to steal property can be cheaper than the property's market price.
You don't need a realtor to buy or sell houses; realtors advise, advertise, and network, lubricating the process so that you don't need to guess at what a good asking price is, or whether you need to repaint the walls. Blockchain real-estate would not in any way obviate realtors.
Out of curiosity, is your customdomain in this case something without any personal info on it? I have a custom domain with my first name and last name initial .com, but now I'm thinking if I want this setup, maybe it's better off getting a domain with random words so even if email leaks, no personal data is leaked.
I'm not currently using it (took down my opensmtpd server.. Haven't replaced it yet) - but I used a subdomain on a vanity domain (in my case things like hn@s.hypertekst.net). If I need a "new" domain, I can just move to another (r.hypertekst.net - s for spam, r for registration... Etc).
Not OP, but same setup. I have a custom domain that has a generic name. Not entirely random just in case I ever have to spell it out or something, but no PII in the domain name. Also, Whois privacy service through my registrar.
You still need to get lucky to be famous on Twitch (or Youtube) for your distribution channel and have enough influence that whatever you make, people will care about it.
Also they don't own their audience in this case, Twitch does.