In this context, diversity refers to characteristics, not to differences of opinion. That said, diverse thinking can be valuable when used for prosocial purposes.
[I've included the link to the CDC report above and the summary below because this information is important and should be accessible (i.e. should not require allowing fbcdn.net trackers). I also prefer the source to somebody's interpretation. If the original article provides additional insight I'd like to see a non-FB link to it, my admittedly quick scan of the comments did not spot one.]
From the SUMMARY of that report:
What is already known about this topic?
During 2020, the proportion of mental health–related emergency department (ED) visits among adolescents aged 12–17 years increased 31% compared with that during 2019.
What is added by this report?
In May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, ED visits for suspected suicide attempts began to increase among adolescents aged 12–17 years, especially girls. During February 21–March 20, 2021, suspected suicide attempt ED visits were 50.6% higher among girls aged 12–17 years than during the same period in 2019; among boys aged 12–17 years, suspected suicide attempt ED visits increased 3.7%.
What are the implications for public health practice?
Suicide prevention requires a comprehensive approach that is adapted during times of infrastructure disruption, involves multisectoral partnerships and implements evidence-based strategies to address the range of factors influencing suicide risk.
It's doubtful that any of us are in a position to know if they are or not.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that 100% of major email providers have stated they do not sell ads based on email content.
Next we have to either: take their word for it or have the means to verify their claims.
Taking their word for it is difficult because many major email providers have a spotty relationship with honesty. This issue of honesty is not necessarily very different from other large corporations and in truth might be a factor in what made them a large corporation in the first place.
(As First Baron Thurlow is claimed to have said: "Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?")
And so we would instead need the means to verify the claims of these major email providers. I'm unsure of how to reasonably do that.
►Perhaps allow Qui Tam claims for privacy issues combined with a statutorily defined "cost" for each false claim instance?
Qui tam allows, for example, private citizens to file suit against bad-actor govt contractors in the name of the govt. The "whistleblower" then receives a share of recovered proceeds.
Here, if a statutory "cost" was defined for every false claim related to using the content of email messages (say $1 per message) then this might provide a way to help verify that the major email providers are being truthful in what they claim regarding their use of content in messages.
Email providers would know their employees are on the lookout for a big payday and might honor their public promises. And if they don't, a few large qui tam lawsuits would quickly get their attention (or drive them into bankruptcy).
- "Smart" alarm clock requires micropayment to use snooze.
And they say:
"Why not? We indicated in the TOS (on page 4) our ability to 'modify the program as needed to better support our customers or our services.'
"Also please note that our TOS, which incorporates our Privacy Policy, allows us to sell your wake-up time to third parties in real-time.
"And before you say you never agreed to our TOS, we say you did when you plugged the SuperSmartestAlarm into a power outlet (as clearly indicated on page 22 of the aforementioned TOS, which can be conveniently viewed in a 6" x 2" frame with vertical and horizontal scrollbars)."
[Since this is too close to the truth to be obvious satire: no, this is not happening AFAIK (right now).]
They wouldn't need to bury that in the TOS; they'd make it a feature: "Our innovative pay-to-snooze feature helps you get up earlier by penalizing you for hitting the snooze button"
That's already a feature on some smartphone alarms. However, it requires opt-in and usual payment verification - if I want to spend my money on snooze, and specifically authorize this, there's no problem at all.
I am hopeful that now that the FTC has a pro-consumer Chair that some of these anti-consumer acts will be curtailed.
I would also argue that some of these bad acts could be considered to be false / deceptive trade practices under the various state laws (in the U.S. at least). For example, some people would never have bought a FireTV cube for streaming video if Amazon had revealed that they would be adding advertisements to the consumer's video-viewing experience.
But: how much incentive is there for individuals to file a small claims suit against Amazon for a $79 device? Generally speaking you might get treble damages but not much more unless you've had actual damages.
And although class action suits are frustrating and should be "fixed" so that those harmed get the bulk of the proceeds (i.e. it's not okay that consumers receive discount coupons or $10 checks while plaintiff's counsel receives a disproportionally huge payday) this is one thing we've lost by generally not allowing class actions.
David v. Goliath is not as effective as 15,000 Davids v. Goliath.
Not to even mention the mandatory arbitration imposed on consumers (which do sometimes carve out the ability to file in small claims court).
We have cultivated, or at least allowed, a very anti-consumer bias to take hold in U.S. law.
The worst part is that google is abusing its power to limit people choices. They are enforcing terms on their phone partners that if they want Android (their only choice), they have to not use Fire OS or other Android forks on any device they make. You can read more here - https://www.protocol.com/google-android-amazon-fire-tv
The fact that they use the monopoly power on the phone to force Manufacturers to use Android TV is insane to me. The fact that they then quickly made the experience extremely anti consumer is a playbook monopoly play.
Unfortunately I have seen recently some arbitration clauses now include language saying, for example, that arbitration costs will be shared equally(!) or otherwise limiting their use by consumers.
However, the more that these mandatory arbitration clauses limit consumer rights the more likely that they will be found to be unenforceable. This is one reason that you'll often find that contracts with mandatory arbitration will have a clause specifying that in the event the arbitration clause is unenforceable that the rest of the agreement still stands.
The MegaCorps add this clause because they know that they are pushing the boundaries of what will be allowed by the courts.
Historically arbitration was intended to be a solution for parties of comparable bargaining power (e.g. MegaCorpABC vs MegaCorpXYZ) but instead are increasingly used by MegaCorp vs LittleConsumer.
Does anybody in the U.S. have a credit card that doesn't impose mandatory arbitration? Not that I've seen.
This is a topic that deserves much more news coverage. Most consumers have no clue how mandatory arbitration is being used against them.
And that's before we even consider their more egregious use in, for example, employment agreements as was the case in the article you've shared.
I bought a FireStick 4k to connect to my monitor since most services won't steam 4k to the PC. Have been very disappointed that the whole experience seems to be geared around promoting content instead of allowing me to interact with the content I HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR.
> And although class action suits are frustrating and should be "fixed" so that those harmed get the bulk of the proceeds (i.e. it's not okay that consumers receive discount coupons or $10 checks while plaintiff's counsel receives a disproportionally huge payday)
I don't understand why most people have a problem with this. It's the company that sold you the $79 product that cheated you. Be upset with them.
Personally, I don't care if I get $0 out of a class action lawsuit. I've already been cheated out of my money, so my main concern is punishing the company that ripped me off so they don't do it again.
Class action lawyers get a lot of hate, but those firms are fronting a ton of money and taking a ton of (monetary) risk by litigating on behalf of the class. They deserve a big reward when they win.
If you want to change the system, impose MASSIVE penalties on the companies that are cheating consumers. Make them pay 3-5x the going rate for the plaintiff's lawyers PLUS 100% refunds to all the customers that got ripped off.
There's nothing wrong with it, if you are told about this up front and it's part of your purchasing calculation.
Retroactively adding ads to an ad-free device after the customer has purchased it, sometimes buying it specifically to avoid competing devices with ads, is inexcusable bullshit.
If you subscribe to cable/satellite television, you expect there to be advertising. I'm not certain, but i suspect the agreement you sign while signing up for cable or streaming services, would include some sort of advertising clause.
Ie, u less a service explicitly promotes am ad-free experience, there should be no expectations of such.
How about their car’s infotainment system? Can we start showing them ads when stopped at a light or were they promised an ad free experience there as well?
This isn't about a service, it's about devices. The Google TV launcher is the de-facto UI for Android TV devices (like my Nexus Player, which is...7 YEARS OLD and now gets ads) and Google/Android TV-powered TVs, which are made by a bunch of different manufacturers. While my Nexus Player is rooted and I could theoretically install a different launcher, many of these TVs can't be modified. So if you purchased a TV thinking that it's smart capabilities were like a dumb OS UI into services like Netflix or Hulu (which may or may not have ads in their service agreement, as you point out), now they're getting pushed Amazon Fire-esque ads that prioritize spending money with Google from the UI over the services that you want to use.
A good parallel is the recent Peloton Treadmill update (as a result of the CPSC suit). You used to be able to use the treadmill without video content, it worked as a treadmill; you only had to pay for a subscription if you wanted Peloton content on the screen. This seems fairly obvious to anyone buying the device, and makes sense. I buy a treadmill, I can use the treadmill forever, but if i want content, I pay a monthly fee.
When they push a software update that makes the treadmill unusable without the subscription, now you're tied to not only paying for the service (at whatever price they decide that week), but you're also tied to the company itself continuing to exist and OFFER content.
A bunch of lawsuits have been filed, I'm sure it'll be reverted to 'the way it was' soon. (I honestly believe it was a largely clumsy move in trying to quickly tie a PIN code to the software to keep kids/unauthorized users from turning it on).
But it's a parallel here. My Google TV device might show ads on the TV network, but you pay for the device to not get ads on the home screen like the awful Fire Stick I have. (every time you hit 'play' to try to unpause a program, you are actually hitting 'play' on the terrible ad they gave you).
A lot of "innovation" in consumer tech is really just turning previously-standalone devices into subscription platforms and/or billboards. I'm sure the engineers who build these are proud of their contributions to society.
This is a bad take on Peloton. Peloton made it subscription only because the default user experience had bad design in that treadmills can be pin locked only if the customer is subscribed. In order to compensate for the bad design peloton has offered 3 months of subscription for free and has promised to add the pin lock feature to non subscribers soon.
Not that I agree with anything Peloton has done in this situation, but you make it sound much worse than it already is.
How is it a bad take on Peloton? If anything, your comment is more critical ("default user experience had bad design"). It seems clear to me that they'll end up replacing it with a pin lock that works even without a subscription, but it was probably easier to quickly implement in existing code that required a subscription. And, now that I re-read your comment, you say the same thing -- "has promised to add the pin lock feature to non subscribers soon".
I don't see how a single word of my comment makes it sound much worse than it is. I pointed out what they did as a result of CPSC, and indicated that they'll likely reverse course, which you confirmed.
I'm not super well-versed in how it works at the moment. I've got a Tread, but can't use it due to knee surgery, so I've been watching the CPSC uproar / PIN requirement from afar, and generally think it's pretty silly.
Although in the US damages for defamation can include compensatory damages (intended to "make the plaintiff whole" by compensating for monetary losses) they can also include general damages for non-economic impacts (for example mental anguish & damage to reputation) as well as other types of damages.
However, not all US states allow all types of damage claims and/or have special rules or higher burdens of proof related to those types of claims.
Generally speaking though, it is incorrect to say that somebody must show that they have had actual, monetary damages in order to be successful in a defamation lawsuit.
Yes -- our non-profit publishes nearly all of our games to the web because they run reliably on browsers in schools and public libraries without plug-ins. We've deliberately gone in this direction to make games available to educators without risking the ire of network admins.
The web is reliably the best platform for the games our nonprofit produces. And we've produced dozens of them played by young people around the world for the past 15 years. (Yes, we've had setbacks with deprecation of Flash and Unity Web Player but webGL has been fantastic.)
Although the games are also available through the appstores or for direct download, those channels are not as accessible for many people, especially those on the other side of the digital-divide. No smartphone, tablet, or home PC? Then turn to the web instead: our evidence-based and award-winning games are used by educators in classrooms, by parents at home, and by young people who access them via public libraries.
The web is the best outlet for these games because it is by far the most accessible of platforms. These games are also much safer from a privacy perspective via the web than installing an always-on & always-tracking game from Google Play.
And though these are not AAA games and they don't include microtransactions or advertisements that merely means nobody is getting rich from them. But that isn't our goal. Our goal is to drive positive change in the most efficient way possible.
Genuinely free video games via the web is how to safely reach and empower hundreds of thousands of young people around the world about issues important to them.
My experience with WebGL has been hit and miss, because many people are blocked to use it properly, whereas native 3D APIs just work on the same system.
All due to how browsers block access to drivers or specific cards.
The editor UI is mostly implemented in the game engine, so dogfooding the web version of the engine for the editor will bring improvements in engine functionality and probably performance to all games.
1) Although the satire seems obvious, it does help to know that the engine is named for the play 'Waiting for Godot'.
2) In the long run the bad actors who exploit users through IAP/loot boxes are harming the entire industry. This is not a secret to anybody in the industry -- but the bad actors are throwing enough money around that (to a great extent) they've been allowed to keep raking it in so far regardless of the consequences.
3) Genuinely free games do exist but stand little chance when competing with "free-but-IAP-and-dark-patterns" games. App stores need to do more to help users.
4) Strong industry representation is needed to set the proper tone but ESA has not seemed able (or possibly willing) to stand up to some of their funders. At least ESA is finally rid of the bully who'd run it for years. Hopefully they'll do what's right once we begin to return to normalcy.
