Both of those are things that they can do without prior restraint.
Both of those are things that they can do without prior restraint.
I would love to see this FTC rule challenged in Court. This is a very solid example of government overreach into private speech that they have labelled "commercial" by regulatory fiat. The entire concept of regulating this type of elective speech - where private individuals have elected to use a service which enables them to access what other people have published - is gravely disturbing to me. The FTC's view that this is a form of advertising under their control is very-outdated.
A Twitter post is much more like the answer you get when you say to a person - "What do you think?" than a form of advertising that targets people broadly.
Arbitration does not mean you get to resolve a dispute, it is not "small claims court, lite-version". Arbitration means that whoever has the most money will win.
I disagree strongly. I have gone to arbitration close to a dozen times against big companies. And I've won in every case but one. MOst of the time they settle before the process gets going.
What arbitration does is remove the prospect of a big punitive award against the company. But in all my cases, I got exactly what I wanted to the extent that I had actual documentated losses or damages. Would it have been nice to win a punitive award for a million bucks here or there? Certainly.
I found in all cases, that the arbitration method produced pressure on the company to assign a real person with authority to settle issues (usually a paralegal or in house counsel), and produced incentive for them to settle before owning fees to the arbitration company. In virtually all cases, the arbitration clause specified that the company would pay the initial filing fee, which usually runs like $700-$1000. That basically means that if your claim is for less than $1000, they'll just give it to you without much fuss.
The basic method to follow is:
1. Read your agreement. It will say how to file. Usually it's with the American Arb Association, which is the favorite. Or a competitor, but it's almost always the AAA.
2. You almost always have the right to have the hearing near you or a place of your choosing. Or often your place of last billing. In one case, I used this to my benefit by changing my billing address to a mailer forwarded in remote Alaska.
3. Almost every agreement, because of the patchwork of state laws and Federal Law like the FAA, have the company pay the initial filing fee. This is usually around $1,000. For example, here is Sprint:
(4) We each are responsible for our respective costs, including our respective counsel, experts, and witnesses. Sprint will pay for any filing or case management fees associated with the arbitration and the professional fees for the arbitrator's services.
4. Almost every agreement has constraints on the company as well, which means that they have to negogiate first. So:
Before initiating an arbitration or a small claims matter, you and Sprint each agree to first provide to the other a written notice ("Notice of Dispute"), which shall contain: (a) a written description of the problem and relevant documents and supporting information; and (b) a statement of the specific relief sought. A Notice of Dispute to Sprint should be sent to: General Counsel; Arbitration Office; 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mailstop VARESA0202-2C682; Reston, Virginia 20191. Sprint will provide a Notice of Dispute to you in accordance with the "Providing Notice To Each Other Under The Agreement" section of this Agreement. Sprint will assign a representative to work with you and try to resolve your Dispute to your satisfaction. You and Sprint agree to make attempts to resolve the Dispute prior to commencing an arbitration or small claims action. If an agreement cannot be reached within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the Notice of Dispute, you or Sprint may commence an arbitration proceeding or small claims action.
This basically means they get a chance to make it right before you can cost them $1,000. This is an awesome incentive for them to settle, every time. If what you want costs less than the filing fee, and you seem determined to fight them, they will just cave. It's simply mathematics.
5. Without arbitration, in most cases, companies have a huge advantage. You can't sue them in small claims court or state court because of jurisdiction. The first thing the company will do is petition for removal for diversity of jurisdiction - that means moving it from small claims or state court to Federal court. They'll win, you'll have to deal with a different court, with a lot of procedures and burden on you. 99% of the time this means that you aren't even ever going to get to a hearing, let alone a trial. They'll file a motion to dismiss, and in most cases, you won't be able to even formulate an appropriate response to the Court. All that procedural bias goes away in arbitration.
So those are the good sides. The bad sides are, they can process a few cranks like me sending arbitration demands, day in and day out, and it becomes just another cost of doing business. It never gets anything changed. Class action awards are enough money that it forces the companies to pay attention.
I think if we have a strong regulatory framework, where the regulators are going after the big problems, and individuals use arbitration, things will be better than the class action system.
I'll put to you this way, if you ever are dealing with customer service, and have decided, well, I am just going to have to sue them, you know it's over. If you tell them that, they'll say go ahead, and they are out. If you instead document your problem, send a dispute notice with intent to arbitrate, they have 45 days to deal with you (in most cases), or else they are $1,000 minimum. You will get a call, it will be someone who can settle and solve problems, and that's that.
Class-action suits typically just end in big payouts to the class, that end up getting divided into a million or two parts, with a 1/3 going to the lawyers who represent the class. It's not all that useful really.
I think what an enterprising person needs to do is set it up easy to have class members compel individual arbitration. This isn't cheap for AT&T. A good trial lawyer with a nice system could bring in clients, help them file an arbitration claim, and then wait for the system to implode. Most agreements specific American Arbitration Association or a competitor. I have fought many mandatory arb. claims using AAA, and the process is titled to the consumer in a way because the mediation happens near you, the consumer, in almost all cases, often within 50 miles. There's also a lower standard of evidence, and it's relatively informal.
For most agreements, and basically anything with the AAA, requires that the company pay the filing fee.
So in the past, when I filed against Sprint, for example, they did everything they could to get me to withdraw the filing before they had to pay the $1000 or so in filing and case administration fees that become due automatically after so many days. My claim was only for about $800 (I wanted out of a contract because I literally went from perfect service to no service for over a month, straight). In the end, they unlocked the phones, refunded me a few months service, and voided the contract with no penalty. A value of about $1200.
For small claims, it's actually pretty efficient and you don't need a lawyer. If I had a lawyer, he or she could have collected 33% of that easily, for perhaps 1-2 hrs of work. Not go to Vegas, big victory, riches, but if you repeat a few hundred thousand times, it could easily add up, especially if you built a system that makes the filing and paperwork easy.
If I had one of these deals with AT&T, I'd be filing every month or so. Just on principle.
You are incorrect. CALEA only applies to carriers and manufacturers of carrier technology. It does not apply to manufacturers or providers of handsets for regular commercial use.
Here is a good overview from Wikipedia:
"The U.S. Congress passed the CALEA to aid law enforcement in its effort to conduct criminal investigations requiring wiretapping of digital telephone networks. The Act obliges telecommunications companies to make it possible for law enforcement agencies to tap any phone conversations carried out over its networks, as well as making call detail records available. The act stipulates that it must not be possible for a person to detect that his or her conversation is being monitored by the respective government agency."
There's also a serious problem with selection bias, in that charter schools can screen and discourage students that they don't want. Charter schools often don't have any severely disabled students, for example, because they are expensive.
You can draw a dividing line one the colour scale and call every darker than that "black" and everyone lighter "white" or some other ethnicity, but it's not nearly as meaningful as we imagine. We use that characteristic because it's the easiest to see, but if we started grouping by some other gene variants then we would get a drastically different set of races.
In the context you are talking about, is race only color? Race has also had the meaning of a subgroup within a species sharing characteristics. In the terms you are talking about, is only characteristic superficial skin color?
Now that Twitter is winning the Troll Wars, the platform is finally going to turn the corner, right? Any day now?
It's really hard to censor and block and ban your way to stability and profitability and growth. Creating small circles of users who are banned and blocked from each other isn't a long-term recipe for success.
Which is already something that can be done. Courts have ruled that you have to turn of encryption keys and passwords before.
This bill just breaks the world trying to enforce what we already have through involuntary methods.
Yeah, a man in the middle which will be mercilessly DDOS'd, hacked, cracked, and physically stolen time and time again by foreign powers, kiddies, syndicates, and the mob.
Worst idea in a long line of bad ideas from Congress.
It's over. Anyone on their staff thinking otherwise is delusional. No one trusts government, programmers will never implement this, you can put the math back in the bottle.
Feinsten might as well introduce legislation to declare that 2+2 = 5. It doesn't matter what she passes, what she is proposing requires mathematics to become broken in a fundamental way.
They can ban whatever they want it won't matter. Ever.
Sorry. Next time Senator, you are faced with a moment of truth, and the choice is: support hidden, destructive, illegal government surveillance or support telling the public the truth, choose truth. Next time if you have a choice between calling a brave man doing something important a treasonous coward or a hero, chose hero.
In the meantime, fuck off.
> Of course they are doing better because of it...
This isn't science though. A dad who was never there, but the child was none the wiser (aka double blind) would not be expected, scientifically, to have any differences in outcome.
Is he really this stupid? Nothing in those first two months gives the kid the advantage. For a good chunk of that time the child will be functionally unable to see much of anything. Bonding with the mother and establishing healthy sleeping and feeding habits will be more important than having him around.
The point of these studies are that the ability to take time off CORRELATES to better outcomes, not that they are CAUSED by taking this time off. Being the type of dad who can take time off, who is financially stable, who is involved, who is willing, etc are all related to having better outcomes at all the little points in time that add up to influence the outcomes of a child.
Zuckerberg is probably missing the pages of virtually every long-term study every performed which show, pretty decisively, that parental income is the single best indicator to positive educational and life outcomes.
I will support this "zero knowledge" key escrow when I have three assurances:
1. Death penalty for any government employee who misuses data. You look up data about a girlfriend, or an enemy, or a political opponent? No problem, enjoy your Federal death penalty.
2. Death penalty for the cabinet level director for any agency who abuses or has a single employee who abuses data. Oh, sorry, low-level contractor abused data? Enjoy your needle.
3. Excess funding to 0 for any agency that abuses data - no health insurance, no travel, no coffee in the lounge, no flat screen TVs, no car repairs, no vending machine fixes, nothing. No comforts at all, for 1 year.
Lavish spending can be disastrous. Don't buy any lavishes for a while.