Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sayhar's commentslogin

A lot of this is flatly untrue.


Like what?


[flagged]


Then you can give us some proof/citation on "They had many options for evading DRM" please?

Every time I've borrowed a book on there, it's used Adobe DRM just like when I buy an ebook.


The options to download the book as a PDF or epub.


Those options don't exist for books in their lending programme though.

Example: https://archive.org/details/introducingpytho0000luba


I have seen it many times. Perhaps they removed it since the lawsuit.


I have too: on books that are not part of their controlled lending programme.


How could they tell you were on that subreddit? Presumably you were doing it from a separate browser on the phone -- can they really snoop on behavior in completely separate apps?


Indeed they shouldn't be able to know that without deliberately bypassing the phone's security features using vulnerabilities. Maybe confirmation bias is at play here?


I guess it could be the same IPv6 address, or IPv4 + user agent matching with a third party ad categorization service.


> How could they tell you were on that subreddit? Presumably you were doing it from a separate browser on the phone -- can they really snoop on behavior in completely separate apps?

The subreddit was opened in an incognito window, and the native app on the same phone.


This is a great article.

Rabbitholed a tiny bit on this part:

> Big companies got the law changed to enable ocean carriers to offer secret discounts in exchange for volume guarantees.

To an article linked in the first article: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2018/12/congr...

> The last amendment to the Shipping Act occurred in 1998 as the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998, following a five-year study of the effect of the Shipping Act on maritime trade and commerce. The 1998 amendment allowed carriers and shippers to enter confidential rate agreements providing discounted rates in exchange for cargo volume commitments. In 2005, the FMC issued a regulatory ruling extending authority to non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) to enter such confidential rate agreements with shippers.

> After the 1998 amendment, the maritime industry experienced significant and widespread consolidation. In addition to carrier mergers and acquisitions concentrating the bulk of containership capacity in U.S. trades to fewer than a dozen large carriers, the formation of vessel carrier alliances caused further substantial consolidation. Currently, there are three major carrier alliances representing 80 percent of all container trade. Within the alliances, there has been further consolidation, e.g., the creation of Ocean Network Express (ONE) by the merger of Japanese carriers.

Damn.


I relatively recently read a biography on John D. Rockefeller and this reminds me of some of the things Standard Oil did with rail companies to gain a market advantage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_...

Rabbithole indeed. Here's notes from a meeting of the HoR Judiciary Committee in 1999, "ANTITRUST ASPECTS OF THE OCEAN SHIPPING REFORM ACT OF 1998": http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju62447.000/...

TIL that ocean carriers have apparently been exempt from antitrust laws since ~1916.


Well there’s your problem right there. Regulatory capture with a heaping helping of crony capitalism.


But you repeat yourself!


Is the cause-and-effect correct here? There are huge advantages to consolidation, so one would expect it to happen regardless.

Also note that Holland & Knight aren't unbiased observers. They are paid to lobby on behalf of clients, and do a decent trade in the politics of shipping: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/lobbying/search?se...


Well, consolidation didn't happen for decades, then it happened rapidly after the law was changed, so that's pretty clear evidence to me.

I don't think you could accuse Matt Stoller of being in the pocket of any industry, and here's a similar take from him: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/too-big-to-sail-how-a-leg...


Why would you not be able to enter into such an agreement?

Basically everywhere in business people negotiate bulk rate discounts. And why wouldn’t they?

Often businesses will only agree to a deeper discount if you agree not to tell others what rate you got.

It seems odd to me that this wouldn’t be allowed.


Thank you for your service!


Thank you! (I wrote the article)


Hello, I wasn't aware we were on /r/politicalcompassmemes


Are you trying to claim based is from some random subreddit


I think it's rather clear that using "based" in this context is more common in certain communities than others.


This is how the whole internet uses based


Not HN


You really think Frances is a deep cover op by Facebook? Really? Wow.


Yep! We both quit FB in 2019. This has been our (full time, volunteer, spending our savings) job since ~Jan/Feb of this year.

It's taken a long time to gather people, build trust, figure out our strategy, find consensus, make our first reports, etc.


yep.


> The problem instead seems to be a systemic one. i.e. What kinds of posts does the platform incentivise and promote as a whole?

These are the big questions we want to be tackling.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: