Hypothetical examples are always used to justify regulations.  This is a method of suppressing abuse.

You are rather selective in the applications of your principles ZT.  They are clearly not universal, as once extrapolated they don't hold up to scrutiny.

No. That's an abuse in itself.
Besides, regulating something that doesn't exist is not just a waste of resources. It's simply stupid.

Nothing is universal. Even the 1st ammendment doesn't grant absolute freedom to go unpunished if you scream "Fire" in a movie theater and people die. But don't allow the government to use it as an example to shut you up.

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 08, 2021, 07:11

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 08, 2021, 00:14

It isn't just that it hosts the hate or misinfornation. It's that it uniformly pushes the hate and misinformation over other speech. Because that kind of content maximises engagement and keeps people clicking. When you have an endless supply of content and your algorithm buries everything but the worst of it you aren't just the paper a news paper is written on. You are choosing the content to present to the reader, so something more akin to the newspaper editor. Facebook is highly curated by human beings, they just do it via algorithms.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/part-one-mark-zuckerberg-should-be-on-trial-for-crimes/id1373812661?i=1000492096869

They do what their users want, and that's why FB is so popular.

Some like you are accusing them for being too tolerant, others are accusing them of censorship.

So where do you want to draw the line? Where it fits your own interests?

Is the fact that the most powerful president in the world got banned, while in power, for promoting lies and misinformation not good enough for you? Not impressed? Do you want more?
BTW, I just read that now he is begging a judge to "re-instate" him. He desperately wants on FB again.

Or maybe you want the government to regulate and start censoring other opposition outlets like NewsMax, OAN, FoxNews because they also spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard?

But why stopping here?
They should also censor the republican party, because they spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard.
Or specific elected individuals who spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard.

Or maybe you want specific movies or video games to be banned because "they promote violence". Maybe you want Tarantino to be banned, too.

Even if you would like this too, that's not how democracy works. That's what North Korea is doing.

The government should stay out of all this. People should be free to make their own choices. If people flock to FB, it's because they like it. No government should tell them what to like.

So, are you happy for everyone to watch a video of a child being sexually abused?

Is that what FB is accused of? I doubt!

FB has already drawn that line way beyond that, without any push from the government.
They drew that line because they know very well that this bad, and they know very well that their users are also considering this very bad. There is no need for a government to draw the line so low, when FB already did it, way beyond this limit.

The government should hunt down criminals and child abusers. That's their job.

It isn't just that it hosts the hate or misinfornation. It's that it uniformly pushes the hate and misinformation over other speech. Because that kind of content maximises engagement and keeps people clicking. When you have an endless supply of content and your algorithm buries everything but the worst of it you aren't just the paper a news paper is written on. You are choosing the content to present to the reader, so something more akin to the newspaper editor. Facebook is highly curated by human beings, they just do it via algorithms.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/part-one-mark-zuckerberg-should-be-on-trial-for-crimes/id1373812661?i=1000492096869

They do what their users want, and that's why FB is so popular.

Some like you are accusing them for being too tolerant, others are accusing them of censorship.

So where do you want to draw the line? Where it fits your own interests?

Is the fact that the most powerful president in the world got banned, while in power, for promoting lies and misinformation not good enough for you? Not impressed? Do you want more?
BTW, I just read that now he is begging a judge to "re-instate" him. He desperately wants on FB again.

Or maybe you want the government to regulate and start censoring other opposition outlets like NewsMax, OAN, FoxNews because they also spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard?

But why stopping here?
They should also censor the republican party, because they spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard.
Or specific elected individuals who spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard.

Or maybe you want specific movies or video games to be banned because "they promote hate and violence". Maybe you want Tarantino to be banned, too.

Even if you would like this too, that's not how democracy works. That's what North Korea is doing.

The government should stay out of all this. People should be free to make their own choices. If people flock to FB, it's because they like it. No government should tell them what to like.

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 05, 2021, 15:46

Quote from: cascoly on October 05, 2021, 15:34

(and there is no real competition, much like google for search)

That is not really true, there is plenty of competition.
Twitter and TikTok saw a massive traffic spike when FB went down.
There is Youtube, there is Reddit, there is Discord, there is this forum and many others.
There are many alternatives, ready to take over as soon as FB makes a mistake.

And there is also Parler and Rumble, 8chan/8kan, and the deep-web, for those serial offenders who were banned from FB and Twitter.  Even The My Pillow Guy has his own social media site. Well... sort of. 

But users simply like FB more. For the time being.

all minor league compared to FB -- and the fact that these sites show improved traffic when FB is down only enforces my point that FB has little effective competition.

For the time being FB is the biggest in the field, indeed.
That's because they offer a service customers like, like it or not  .
Somebody must be number one and they shouldn't be blamed for this.

Anyway, TikTok and Youtube are in the same league, with TikTok growing fast in 2021.

Here is an interesting clip showing the evolution of social media.
Check the ebb and flow, typical to a competitive market.

https://youtu.be/p-u2mENgWdQ

As I said, as soon as FB will start making mistakes, many of its competitors will be ready to step in and take over the first spot.

Uncle Pete mentioned MySpace, but closer to photography, just check how popular was Flickr, back in the day, until they got comfy and failed to innovate, opening the field for Instagram. That's just normal in a competitive market.

No company stays number one long-term unless it has government back-up through special regulations. If you think about it, that was the case last year, for a while, when the previous administration tried to block TikTok from competing with FB.

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 04, 2021, 17:23

Quote from: For Real on October 04, 2021, 16:16

The outage came the morning after "60 Minutes" aired a segment in which Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen claimed the company is aware of how its platforms are used to spread hate, violence and misinformation, and that Facebook has tried to hide that evidence. Facebook has pushed back on those claims.

Based on that logic, this forum may also be guilty.

We can't blame the paper producer for the news printed on a newspaper, or the post office for delivering hate mail, or newspapers spreading misinformation.

Hate, violence and misinformation existed long before FB.
It's human nature. People on FB are hateful, violent and liars, not FB.

NRA always states--People kill people not guns. I do agree with that people are the ones responsible. Just like on this forum we can remove nasty comments if needed.

And to a large extent, FB is already deleting or hiding nasty posts. Serial offenders are banned, including a former president.

Obviously these people are accusing FB of censorship, while as we can see in that report, some others are blaming FB for not doing enough policing.

Both groups are wrong. FB is a private company and it should be free to design its own rules, to prosper or die as a consequence of its decisions.
Those who don't like it, from either side of the argument, are free to leave and chose a competitor.

in 2021, P5 made 16% of my video earnings, based on 9% of my video downloads.

thats not copyright infringment by the way, i dont think its legally wrong, it just pissed off istock, just be careful what you post here under your real name

I'm afraid it is. You can't upload someone else's work. That's clearly copyright infringement. That was really stupid. iStock's decision was perfectly justified.

rinder had his istock account deleted when they found him boasting on here.

Not really. If I remember well, Rinder got caught breaking the ToS by cross-buying his own work, together with some other dude, in an attempt to prove that iStock was cheating, or something.

But you are right about retaliation, in general.

For the newcomers: it is advisable to stay as anonymous as possible, if you intend to criticize some agencies. Don't link your port to your profile, unless you only plan to kiss their a@@. 😉

Since it went public, SS sole and only goal is to the shareholders.
To that extent the CEO is delivering.  They'll be happy with that.

Whether its sustainable long term or slash and burn now will come back to haunt them medium term remains to be seen but im sure the shareholders are very happy with the CEO at present.

They've gambled, possibly correctly, that even slashing commissions they'll have more than enough content being supplied to keep going.

Exactly! Only future will tell if these decisions will be sustainable long term.

Like it or not, everything is working very well for the company, so far!

'Murdered' is the appropriate description of the actions of the executive leadership of that place. The top dog is a callous, cunning, narcissistic hypocrit.

And yet, under his leadership, SS is doing better than ever. See the graph.

If your money would be at stake, you would want someone like him as the boss of your company 

But since it's not, it costs you nothing to call him names 

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 29, 2021, 08:49

Quote from: dragonblade on September 27, 2021, 22:15

I did some random video searches on Alamy today and I was surprised to find some of my videos on there. By the way, I was not contributing to Alamy in the days when they accepted video.

I clicked on a few videos of mine and under 'contributor', it says: "Pond 5 / Alamy Stock Video." And yes, I also have these same videos on Pond 5.

Actually, I vaguely recall some deal between Pond 5 and Adobe Stock where your editorial videos on Pond 5 could be sold through AS. But I wasn't aware of any deal between Pond 5 and Alamy.

Interestingly, only some of my Pond 5 videos are available on Alamy - not all of them. I wonder if there's some kind of selection process or I guess it could be random.

Though it does seem odd that some of my videos on Alamy are also on my Pond 5 exclusive account. Since they're exclusive, I would have assumed they could only be sold through P5. And there are also non exclusive P5 videos of mine on Alamy.

I did check the details of a few of my videos and I notice my Pond 5 account name on them (on the Alamy website.)

Instead of a random search, you can go to Advanced search and type in your username, to see all your videos.

That doesn't work for our Pond5 videos on Alamy because the assigned contributor is Pond5. They have included the name of clip creator in a Photographer field, but that is non-searchable.

Select videos, use your P5 username and it will work. It works for me.

Welcome aboard� from the fellow septuagenarian who approved your first post!

Hmmm... Interesting. I also approved it. Maybe more than one approval is needed before a post becomes public. 🤔

But it's nonsense to say that if you stay you can't protest.

Nobody told you that you can't protest. You can protest as much as you want. You just have to assume the consequences.