Good twist on that one.

Goodbye Tim Apple, hello John Apple.

Scalping is reselling goods on the secondary market for more than you bought them at the source?

It is harder if you want to resell it yourself, but that is the whole point. The right to resell a piece of paper or a code that lets you into a venue is the means by which scalpers ply their arbitrage.

It just makes more sense to allow people to have the venue refund them. Then suddenly it’s not sold out anymore.

There’s a few ways to do this. At the other commenter said you can attach a name and require ID at the door. ID could be as common as a credit card or a school ID or even an official piece of mail. All this is less invasive than biometrics and more reliable too. Biometrics are always for convenience and not security.

If you want to get extra cautious, sell tickets at the booth for an hour or two before the doors open and up until the beginning of the show. The ticket comes in the form of a paper wristband, like they use for alcohol, and you can pay cash.

Want to buy a ticket for your friend? Use their legal name and then they show ID at the door. There’s paranoid as you? Send them cash.

There’s another option. You can buy tickets for yourself and any number of companions. Only the purchaser has to show ID, and the entire party has to come in with the purchaser.

There. And now you didn’t have to give Sam Altman legal authority to store and resell your biometric data to private surveillance networks and retail shops in exchange for seeing Taylor Swift live.

They already do that to a degree. The problem is that scalpers buy up all the tickets and then over charge people on the secondary market.

I think that second thing is just called a refund.

“Oh no what if someone believes my hype about building a Torment Nexus and, instead of throwing more money on my money fire, tries setting me on fire instead.”

You know what could solve ticket scalping? Ban ticket resales. That’s always been an option. Venues don’t do this because their only concern is selling out their seats.

Either way it’s a problem.

If politicians are writing tech bills to deliberately undermine freedom: fire them.

If they’re writing bad tech policy because they’re not consulting the “good guys” first, such as the FSF, EFF, or OSI: also fire them.

He appears to be a New Jersey Rep, and the Democratic cosponsor of this bill.

Too me one of the big issues is being able to trust a government or business to not trace a person’s identity back through the token. There are technical ways to prevent that as far as I’m aware, but there’s such a strong incentive against such protections that it’s really hard to trust unless you’re technologically skilled enough to verify the process yourself.

Primary Josh Gottheimer. Write in anyone else against him. Vote against him or withhold voting at all in the general.

Do not signal that this is tolerated.

They’re doing both.

Exactly. I will pay for things that I want. If you do not sell them to me I will get them some other way or satisfy myself with other things.

He was asking about pi hole versus and AdGuard DNS.

Not to be rude, but this website looks like AI, and I don’t think these authors are real.

While I appreciate your disdain for the titans of industry, the policy you advocate for, for platforms to be responsible for user content, is like tearing up the railways. It reminds me of those ridiculous laws from early in the automobile era where a person was required to sound alarms and wave flags before driving through a city. Policy custom designed to undermine the utility and sustainability of the very thing it is meant to regulate. It would also destroy email, VPS services, VPN services, etc.

I agree with the bit about antitrust though. And holding them responsible for advertisements is a very different question, because they actively solicit and promote advertisements. But otherwise your policy positions are insane.

While I’m bombarded by obnoxious content on social media, I very very rarely see content that is illegal in my area. Let’s stick a pin in that.

According to a few sources I’ve seen, 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. Suppose Alphabet was to be held liable for any of that content being illegal. Like strict liability. Would they allow automated systems to check the content, or human eyes? They might use some automation, as a pre-check, but they’d be fools to rely on it, because if it misses something they’re on the hook. So how many FTEs would you need to hire just to watch the videos uploaded to YouTube? Not even counting breaks, pauses, double-checking, etc, you’re looking at around 30,000 people. Let’s say you pay them $15/hr no benefits, that’s $10,800,000 per day, close to $4 billion a year, super low balling it because I’m not counting realistic wages, administrative overhead, benefits, or realistic work pace. But maybe Alphabet could still afford it, they grossed $60 billion last year, and while they have lots of other expenses some of that was probably profit. But then I’d ask, could anyone other than Alphabet afford it? Your average PeerTube instance, for instance? Same applies to all the rest.

But back to my first observation. I don’t see a lot of stuff that’s illegal. I see things that are obnoxious, distracting, etc, but not illegal. But it makes me wonder how you conduct yourself as an adult, or what your perspective on lawful speach is, if you find yourself constantly bombarded by material that you believe is or should be illegal.

I’m not sure what data-speech you personally think should or shouldn’t be legal, but I know what kinds a lot of people argue should be illegal: things ranging all the way from videographic records of child abuse (CSAM) to unauthorized copyrighted material to libel to hate speech to blasphemy and plenty else not mentioned. I think some of it is deservedly illegal (e.g. CSAM) and some of it shouldn’t be (e.g. blasphemy).

My position is that in a pluralistic society there will be a variety of speech that people won’t want to see for various reasons, and they have a right not to see it. They have a right to have tools that allow them to not see things they don’t want to see. And government censorship of speech should be limited to the absolute bare minimum of speech that causes material harm, and legal responsibility for those rare instances of illegal speech should fall upon the speaker and not the platform or carrier.