#Regulatory scrutiny

[jaideepkhanduja]

Decoding the Google vs. Epic Games Legal Showdown: Impacts on Android App Ecosystem and Digital Economy

Google and Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, are engaged in a legal battle over the alleged monopoly of Google’s app store and payment system on Android devices. This article explores the multifaceted implications of the case. For app developers, it raises questions about payment structures, alternative options, and competition with Google’s proprietary apps and services. App users, meanwhile,…

[cryptoupdate24houre]

24 Hrs, Sep 14 update: Crypto traded traded in green

The Crypto currency market cap hit $1.10 trillion, up by 1.50% in 24 hours, while trading volumes fell by 16.27% to $35 billion.

SEC Chair Gensler

[techminsolutions]

Legal Precision Unveiled: Unraveling the Intricacies of Input Tax Credit Quandaries

Delving deeper into the intricate tapestry of Goods and Services Tax (GST) implications, the saga of Input Tax Credit (ITC) assumes greater complexity, offering a nuanced perspective on the petitioner-assessee’s odyssey. Embedded within the labyrinth of statutory constructs, the petitioner’s invocation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) rights under section 16 of the CGST Act unfolds against the backdrop…

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Montreal, Canada – Human rights advocates are accusing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government of misleading the public over weapons sales to Israel, which have come under greater scrutiny amid the deadly Israeli bombardment of Gaza.

At issue is legislation that prohibits the government from exporting military equipment to foreign actors if there is a risk it can be used in human rights abuses.

But regulatory loopholes, combined with a lack of clarity over what Canada sends to Israel, have complicated efforts to end the transfers.

Dozens of Canadian civil society groups this month urged Trudeau to end arms exports to Israel, arguing they violate Canadian and international law because the weapons could be used in the Gaza Strip. [...]

But advocates say this misrepresents the total volume of Canada’s military exports to Israel, which totalled more than $15m ($21.3m Canadian) in 2022, according to the government’s own figures. [...]

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @politicsofcanada, @vague-humanoid

[trapangeles]

Template (Copy 1st) (Copy)

In a significant development in the world of cryptocurrencies, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a lawsuit against Coinbase, a prominent crypto trading platform. The SEC alleges that Coinbase has been operating illegally by failing to register as an exchange. This lawsuit marks the latest move in the regulatory crackdown against crypto companies. Today, we delve into the implications of this legal action and explore the perspectives of legal experts in the field, such as Jon-Jorge Aras, partner at Warren Law Group and head of securities litigation.

The SEC's Allegations: According to the SEC, Coinbase, a platform that facilitates cryptocurrency trading, has failed to comply with the necessary regulations and guidelines. By not registering as an exchange, Coinbase has allegedly violated securities laws that aim to protect investors and ensure fair market practices. The SEC's lawsuit sheds light on the increasing scrutiny and tightening regulations faced by companies operating in the crypto industry.

Understanding the Regulatory Landscape: The SEC's legal action against Coinbase reflects a broader trend of regulatory authorities grappling with the unique challenges posed by the rapidly evolving cryptocurrency landscape. As digital assets gain prominence and attract mainstream attention, regulators strive to strike a balance between fostering innovation and safeguarding investors. The complex nature of cryptocurrencies necessitates a careful examination of existing securities laws and their applicability to this emerging sector.

Insights from Jon-Jorge Aras: Jon-Jorge Aras, an esteemed legal expert specializing in securities litigation, provides valuable insights into the implications of the SEC's lawsuit against Coinbase. As a partner at Warren Law Group, Aras brings extensive experience in navigating the intricate legal landscape surrounding the crypto industry. His perspective sheds light on the potential consequences for Coinbase and the broader implications for the regulatory environment in which crypto companies operate.

The Impact on the Crypto Industry: The SEC's lawsuit against Coinbase is a significant event that reverberates throughout the crypto industry. It underscores the increasing scrutiny faced by cryptocurrency exchanges and the need for compliance with regulatory requirements. The outcome of this legal battle may set important precedents and shape the future regulatory framework for the broader crypto ecosystem. As the industry continues to evolve, companies will need to adapt and ensure compliance to navigate the ever-changing legal landscape effectively.

Conclusion: The SEC's lawsuit against Coinbase represents a critical moment in the ongoing struggle to establish regulatory clarity in the cryptocurrency space. As legal battles unfold, the outcomes will undoubtedly shape the future of the industry. The allegations against Coinbase highlight the importance of compliance and adherence to securities laws to foster a secure and transparent environment for crypto investors. By exploring the perspectives of legal experts like Jon-Jorge Aras, we gain valuable insights into the complexities surrounding the SEC's legal action and its potential ramifications for the crypto industry as a whole. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it is imperative for all stakeholders to stay informed and adapt to the changing regulatory requirements in order to build a sustainable future for cryptocurrencies.

Have you been spending all your money and time on making music and shooting videos, but still not getting any exposure? Tired of just spinning your wheels? You know to get exposure you need to get featured on blogs, radio stations, playlist, and get your music e-mail blasted out to the masses. Need help getting all that done? Then check out the Package we’ve made available for you below!

Like & Listen To Our Spotify Playlist

trapLAXradio On The Air Now!

The Latest Music, Videos, News, Entertainment……

[ralfmaximus]

The department joined 16 states and the District of Columbia to file a significant challenge to the reach and influence of Apple, arguing in an 88-page lawsuit that the company had violated antitrust laws with practices that were intended to keep customers reliant on their iPhones and less likely to switch to a competing device. The tech giant prevented other companies from offering applications that compete with Apple products like its digital wallet, which could diminish the value of the iPhone, and hurts consumers and smaller companies that compete with it, the government said.

Apple dominates the phone market to the tune of nearly $3 trillion dollars. Maybe it's time to bust up that monopoly?

Unpaywalled article here.

[capybaracorn]

Demands for Canada to stop supplying weapons to Israel grow louder

But loopholes and a lack of transparency stall efforts to hold government accountable for its role in arming Israel.

Montreal, Canada – Human rights advocates are accusing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government of misleading the public over weapons sales to Israel, which have come under greater scrutiny amid the deadly Israeli bombardment of Gaza.

At issue is legislation that prohibits the government from exporting military equipment to foreign actors if there is a risk it can be used in human rights abuses.

But regulatory loopholes, combined with a lack of clarity over what Canada sends to Israel, have complicated efforts to end the transfers.

Dozens of Canadian civil society groups this month urged Trudeau to end arms exports to Israel, arguing they violate Canadian and international law because the weapons could be used in the Gaza Strip.

But in the face of mounting pressure since Israel’s war on Gaza began on October 7, Canada’s foreign affairs ministry has tried to downplay the state’s role in helping Israel build its arsenal.

“Global Affairs Canada can confirm that Canada has not received any requests, and therefore not issued any permits, for full weapon systems for major conventional arms or light weapons to Israel for over 30 years,” the department told Al Jazeera in an email on Friday.

“The permits which have been granted since October 7, 2023, are for the export of non-lethal equipment.”

But advocates say this misrepresents the total volume of Canada’s military exports to Israel, which totalled more than $15m ($21.3m Canadian) in 2022, according to the government’s own figures.

It also shines a spotlight on the nation’s longstanding lack of transparency around these transfers.

“Canadian companies have exported over [$84m, $114m Canadian] in military goods to Israel since 2015 when the Trudeau government was elected,” said Michael Bueckert, vice president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, an advocacy group.

“And they have continued to approve arms exports since October 7 despite the clear risk of genocide in Gaza,” Bueckert told Al Jazeera.

“Unable to defend its own policy, this government is misleading Canadians into thinking that we aren’t exporting weapons to Israel at all. As Canadians increasingly demand that their government impose an arms embargo on Israel, politicians are trying to pretend that the arms trade doesn’t exist.”

Lack of information

While Canada may not transfer full weapons systems to Israel, the two countries enjoy “a consistent arms trade relationship”, said Kelsey Gallagher, a researcher at Project Ploughshares, a peace research institute.

The vast majority of Canada’s military exports to Israel come in the form of parts and components. These typically fall into three categories, Gallagher explained: electronics and space equipment; military aerospace exports and components; and finally, bombs, missiles, rockets and general military explosives and components.

But beyond these broad categories, which were gleaned by examining Canada’s own domestic and international reports on weapons exports, Gallagher said it remains unclear “what these actual pieces of technology are”.

“We don’t know what companies are exporting them. We don’t know exactly what their end use is,” he told Al Jazeera.

Global Affairs Canada did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s question about what “non-lethal equipment” the government has approved for export to Israel since October 7.

“What does this mean? No one knows because there’s no definition of that and it really could be quite a number of things,” said Henry Off, a Toronto-based lawyer and board member of the group Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights (CLAIHR).

Human rights lawyers and activists also suspect that Canadian military components are reaching Israel via the United States, including for installation in fighter jets such as the F-35 aircraft.

But these transfers are difficult to track because a decades-old deal between Canada and the US – 1956’s Defence Production Sharing Agreement – has created “a unique and comprehensive set of loopholes that are afforded to Canadian arms transfers to the US”, said Gallagher.

“These exports are treated with zero transparency. There is no regulation of, or reporting of, the transfer of Canadian-made military components to the US, including those that could be re-transferred to Israel,” he said.

The result, he added, is that “it is very difficult to challenge what are problematic transfers if we do not have the information with which to do so”.

Domestic, international law

Despite these hurdles, Canadian human rights advocates are pressuring the government to end its weapons sales to Israel, particularly in light of the Israeli military’s continued assault on Gaza.

Nearly 28,000 Palestinians have been killed over the past four months and rights advocates have meticulously documented the impact on the ground of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing, and its vast destruction of the enclave. The world’s top court, the International Court of Justice, also determined last month that Palestinians in Gaza face a plausible risk of genocide.

Against that backdrop, eliminating weapons transfers to Israel is effectively a demand for “Canada [to] abide by its own laws”, said Off, the Toronto lawyer.

That’s because Canada’s Export and Import Permits Act obliges the foreign minister to “deny exports and brokering permit applications for military goods and technology … if there is a substantial risk that the items would undermine peace and security”.

The minister should also deny exports if they “could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws” or in “serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children”, the law states.

Meanwhile, Canada is also party to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a United Nations pact that bans transfers if states have knowledge the arms could be used in genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other violations of international law.

But according to Off, despite a growing list of Israeli human rights violations since October 7, Canada “has been approving the transfer of military goods and technology that might fuel” them.

Late last month, Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights wrote a letter to Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly demanding an immediate end to the transfers. The group said it would consider next steps, including possible legal action, if action is not taken.

‘It takes a village’

Still, Canada insists that it maintains one of the strongest arms export control regimes in the world.

Asked whether his government intends to end arms transfers to Israel, Trudeau said in Parliament on January 31 that Canada “puts human rights and protection of human rights at the centre of all our decision-making”.

“It has always been the case and we have been consistent in making sure that we are responsible in the way we do that. We will continue to be so,” the prime minister said.

Gallagher, at Project Ploughshares, told Al Jazeera, however, that Canada maintains “a level of permissibility” in choosing which countries it chooses to arm, including Israel.

And while Canadian weapons exports to the Israeli government pale in comparison to other countries – notably the US, which sends billions of dollars in military aid to Israel annually – Off said, “Any difference is a difference.”

“It takes a village to make these instruments of death and it should make a difference if we cut off Canada’s contributions,” he told Al Jazeera, adding that the pressure on Canada also sends a message to other countries “potentially aiding and abetting Israel’s slaughter of Gaza”.

“If you send arms to countries committing serious violations of international humanitarian law, you will be held to account.”

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

hi there! love your work! i recently had a prof say that all zoos (USA) are bad (so we shouldn't support them) and sanctuaries are better because using animals for entertainment is morally wrong, most zoo profits dont go to conservation, and conservation efforts are bandaid solutions to capitalism destroying animal habitats, so the real solution is to return the land to indigenous stewards to manage/rewild. i didn't disagree with the last bit, but the argument as a whole felt a little off to me for a reason i couldnt put my finger on. am i off base here? just feeling really unsure about the whole thing.

You're not wrong! There's a mix of reality and personal opinions in those statements, and it's definitely something worth critically examining. A quick fact-check of what they said for you:

All US zoos are bad

There's a massive range of quality of zoological facilities within the US (and around the world). Some are stellar and some are not, and it's really just not accurate to lump them all under the same umbrella for almost any purpose. Unless, of course, your issue isn't with animal welfare, and it's philosophical, which is what it sound like in #2...

2. Using animals for entertainment is morally wrong.

This is one of my favorite things to talk about w/r/t how we exhibit animals. Entertainment has become equated with exploitation and implicit low welfare in the last couple decades, and so you get a lot of people saying using animals for entertainment is wrong. But those same folk will say that they enjoy seeing animals in other contexts, and they think that's okay. Where's the line between enjoying something and being entertained by it? What makes something one and not the other? Also, we know that people learn better from from situations which are enjoyable/entertaining - even just a fun teacher who jokes around vs a dry lecture - so how can that only be a problem when it's used to make viewing animals more impactful? I wrote a whole piece on this a while back (linked here) if you want to dig into this more. Some zoos (and accrediting groups) are shying away from "entertainment" type branding - shows are demos now, for instance - and others are leaning into "edutainment" that's done with good welfare and communicates actual education messaging. In short, this is a personal philosophical belief, and you're right to question if you agree. (Even if you decide you do think that too! It's always good to question why someone is arguing what they believe about animal use, and how they came to believe it).

3. Sanctuaries are better than zoos.

There's two reasons I think he's misinformed here. First, almost all exotic animal sanctuaries in the US are licensed exhibitors - just like zoos! I only know of a couple that don't exhibit to the public at all. It's an important part of their revenue stream, because gate take helps support paying for animal care. Also anything you see from a sanctuary on Youtube, Facebook, or TikTok? Also exhibition! They just message about it differently, and often have a different ethos about how they exhibit (e.g. tours to reduce stress instead of letting people wander, doing conservation or rescue messaging instead of just display). Second... look, most people assume that the word "sanctuary" means a facility is intrinsically more ethical than a zoo, and therefore they must be a good place. In reality, many sanctuaries get much less public and regulatory scrutiny (at the state level) than most zoos. There are good sanctuaries out there, but there are also sanctuaries where stuff goes on that would absolutely be unacceptable at zoos, and it slides because of the assumption that sanctuaries are inherently more moral and ethical and care for their animals better.

4. Most zoo profits don't go to conservation

This is correct! Direct conservation funding is often a small part of the money a zoo makes. However, that's because money goes to things like facility maintenance, new construction, paying salaries, etc. If zoos put all the money they made back into conservation programs, practically, they wouldn't have the funding to continue to operate. The question that I'd suggest asking instead is "where are they putting money into conservation" and "are they doing conservation work or just throwing money at something to display the logo of the program." Also, it's worth keeping in mind that a lot of what zoos do to support conservation isn't necessarily financial. Many facilities contribute "in-kind", by doing things like sending staff to assist with programs or teach specific skills, or by donating things like vehicles and equipment. Research zoos do also seriously contributes to in-situ programs, and breeding programs for re-introduction like the scimitar-horned oryx and the black-footed ferret are also conservation. Could many of the big urban facilities with huge budgets do more? Yes. But looking just at dollars spent on conservation programs is disingenuous and inaccurate.

5. Conservation efforts are band-aid solutions to capitalism destroying habitats / Returning the land to indigenous peoples to manage/rewild is the real solution to conservation issues

This is a little outside my scope so I'm going to only address the part that I know. First off, like, there's no One True Answer to conservation issues. That's reductionist and inaccurate. Conservation really is a human issue, though, and it often has to involve solving human problems that lead to negative results for animals. There's definitely an issue with what some people call "parachute conservation" where Westerners swoop in and try to tell people living in range countries how to best manage their animals and natural resources without recognizing their perspectives, needs, or what drives their behavior towards those animals. That's not just a zoo issue - that's an issue with a ton of traditional Western conservation work. And there is progress towards fixing it! In the zoo world, I've been very impressed with the work out of The Living Desert, where their conservation people spend a lot of time overseas teaching people in range countries to evaluate and improve their own conservation programs, so they can assess efficacy and also have data to apply for grants, etc. They provide support when asked, rather than trying to tell people who live with these animals regularly what to do. One of my favorite programs that TLD collaborates with (they don't try to run it!) is a group called the Black Mambas that reduces poaching by supporting entire communities to reduce the desperation for food/income, educating kids about animals, and running all-female patrols staffed by community members.

Overall, it sounds like your professor's view of zoos is really informed by their personal moral perspective, and possibly reinforced by a lot of the misinformation / misleading messaging that exists about the industry and about conservation work. They do have some specifics right, but not necessarily the context to inform why things are like that. It was a good catch to question the mix of information and approach it critically.

[anarchistfrogposting]

The funniest thing about the claim that scientists have lost their scientific integrity in the modern age is that there are more ethical, regulatory and editorial boards and procedures now than there ever been. Scientists have literally never been under more scrutiny than they are now.

[slutforpringles]

What do you think is actually behind the Danny bashing on social media and Reddit lately?

I find it really puzzling, to put it mildly. As if the decision over an RBR or VCARB seat is simple enough to decide 4 races into a 24-race season, which it certainly isn’t.

Some of the Yuki and Liam fans seem to be really young, and for some of them, there seems to be some sort of weird ageism involved in their anti-Ricciardo ranting.

But some of it seems to be an enjoyment of tearing someone down who’s always been popular, despite him not misusing or abusing that popularity

IDK - what are your thoughts, please?

Hey anon! This is actually a really interesting question, and I’d be really interested to hear other people’s thoughts and opinions on too. I think probably how much time you spend online and on which online platforms does probably affect your viewpoint, and obviously this is just my take on the growing anti-DR sentiment based on what I’ve seen/ experienced. 

I think it’s definitely multi-faceted, which is partly why there’s so much of it at the moment, because multiple situations/things have fed into the Daniel hatred. 

I think a very large percentage of it is simply the influx of new fans into the sport that have only seen Daniel drive from the McL era onwards. 

I think a lot of people are consuming more and more F1 content from non-trustworthy sources (e.g. instagram and twitter update accounts, non-reputable websites) that use clickbait and unsubstantiated rumours to create maximum drama. I think this has been particularly tricky for Daniel, because his popularity has made him a super target since 2021 for this.

I think there's a growing sentiment of annoyance at the limited number of seats available to enter F1, particularly for fans of younger drivers who have watched them go through the feeder series and feel it is unfair that they aren’t being given a chance in F1. I think this has become even louder since F1 rejected Andretti’s bid, and I think struggling or older drivers become a much easier target for expressing that frustration than an entire sport/regulatory body.

I think the more recent wave of fans being more critical of driver’s public opinions and thoughts on social/political/moral issues has probably increased scrutiny on Daniel, too. And while I completely agree with fans expecting more and better from drivers, I think there’s a huge amount of hypocrisy and recency bias when it comes to some very vocal online fans and fanbases, which I think also underscores how many of them are part of the new wave of F1 fans. (E.g. I see ample criticism of Daniel from fans of driver’s who refused to kneel during 2020 that are clearly totally unaware that Daniel was one of the loudest supporters of Lewis during 2020 and BLM protests)

I think it’s also just part and parcel of the growing extreme polarisation of the internet. It seems people are becoming far more used to extreme polarisation in general, and the echo chambers of social media and the wider internet algorithms are only continuing to exaggerate that. People also seem to be less and less civil online, and while places like twitter have been a toxic wasteland for a long time, that toxicity and complete lack of normal human interaction has started to affect other online spaces too.

And yeah I do agree that there seems to be a certain percentage of fans that just seem to enjoy revelling in a driver’s struggles, and love to tear down someone who seems to be a happy bubbly person. And while some of that is maybe inherent sports tribalism (which I’m not really on board with tbh), I really think it’s reached a whole new low.

OK sorry I didn't mean for this to be such a long response! Hope that answers your question and I’d love to hear if anyone else has other thoughts/opinions too!! 🙂

[bad-tf-fic-ideas]

(076) Before Nickel, before the Pet—before Helex is even recruited!—Kaon very miserably comms Tarn at 3AM (ship's time) about a mortifying personal problem. If he promises he will never, ever buy cheap sex toys again, can Tarn please come and help him extract the remains of a poorly made spike that's melted to his interfacing systems?

Tarn is one of the more tolerant—to his own little team, anyway—Decepticon commanding officers anyone could have brought this problem to, so Kaon only wishes he was dead. He is instead signed up for three separate safe interfacing seminars and he has to show his commanding officer his certificate of completion of each. :(

And now, the company producing sex toys that can't stand up to 6 million volts is being subject to an uncomfortable degree of evil regulatory scrutiny...

[mariacallous]

Reddit said ahead of its IPO next week that licensing user posts to Google and others for AI projects could bring in $203 million of revenue over the next few years. The community-driven platform was forced to disclose Friday that US regulators already have questions about that new line of business.

In a regulatory filing, Reddit said that it received a letter from the US Federal Trade Commision on Thursday asking about “our sale, licensing, or sharing of user-generated content with third parties to train AI models.” The FTC, the US government’s primary antitrust regulator, has the power to sanction companies found to engage in unfair or deceptive trade practices. The idea of licensing user-generated content for AI projects has drawn questions from lawmakers and rights groups about privacy risks, fairness, and copyright.

Reddit isn’t alone in trying to make a buck off licensing data, including that generated by users, for AI. Programming Q&A site Stack Overflow has signed a deal with Google, the Associated Press has signed one with OpenAI, and Tumblr owner Automattic has said it is working “with select AI companies” but will allow users to opt out of having their data passed along. None of the licensors immediately responded to requests for comment. Reddit also isn’t the only company receiving an FTC letter about data licensing, Axios reported on Friday, citing an unnamed former agency official.

It’s unclear whether the letter to Reddit is directly related to review into any other companies.

Reddit said in Friday’s disclosure that it does not believe that it engaged in any unfair or deceptive practices but warned that dealing with any government inquiry can be costly and time-consuming. “The letter indicated that the FTC staff was interested in meeting with us to learn more about our plans and that the FTC intended to request information and documents from us as its inquiry continues,” the filing says. Reddit said the FTC letter described the scrutiny as related to “a non-public inquiry.”

Reddit, whose 17 billion posts and comments are seen by AI experts as valuable for training chatbots in the art of conversation, announced a deal last month to license the content to Google. Reddit and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The FTC declined to comment. (Advance Magazine Publishers, parent of WIRED's publisher Condé Nast, owns a stake in Reddit.)

AI chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini are seen as a competitive threat to Reddit, publishers, and other ad-supported, content-driven businesses. In the past year the prospect of licensing data to AI developers emerged as a potential upside of generative AI for some companies.

But the use of data harvested online to train AI models has raised a number of questions winding through boardrooms, courtrooms, and Congress. For Reddit and others whose data is generated by users, those questions include who truly owns the content and whether it’s fair to license it out without giving the creator a cut. Security researchers have found that AI models can leak personal data included in the material used to create them. And some critics have suggested the deals could make powerful companies even more dominant.

The Google deal was one of a “small number” of data licensing wins that Reddit has been pitching to investors as it seeks to drum up interest for shares being sold in its IPO. Reddit CEO Steve Huffman in the investor pitch described the company’s data as invaluable. “We expect our data advantage and intellectual property to continue to be a key element in the training of future” AI systems, he wrote.

In a blog post last month about the Reddit AI deal, Google vice president Rajan Patel said tapping the service’s data would provide valuable new information, without being specific about its uses. “Google will now have efficient and structured access to fresher information, as well as enhanced signals that will help us better understand Reddit content and display, train on, and otherwise use it in the most accurate and relevant ways,” Patel wrote.

The FTC had previously shown concern about how data gets passed around in the AI market. In January, the agency announced it was requesting information from Microsoft and its partner and ChatGPT developer OpenAI about their multibillion-dollar relationship. Amazon, Google, and AI chatbot maker Anthropic were also questioned about their own partnerships, the FTC said. The agency’s chair, Lina Khan, described its concern as being whether the partnerships between big companies and upstarts would lead to unfair competition.

Reddit has been licensing data to other companies for a number of years, mostly to help them understand what people are saying about them online. Researchers and software developers have used Reddit data to study online behavior and build add-ons for the platform. More recently, Reddit has contemplated selling data to help algorithmic traders looking for an edge on Wall Street.

Licensing for AI-related purposes is a newer line of business, one Reddit launched after it became clear that the conversations it hosts helped train up the AI models behind chatbots including ChatGPT and Gemini. Reddit last July introduced fees for large-scale access to user posts and comments, saying its content should not be plundered for free.

That move had the consequence of shutting down an ecosystem of free apps and add ons for reading or enhancing Reddit. Some users staged a rebellion, shutting down parts of Reddit for days. The potential for further user protests had been one of the main risks the company disclosed to potential investors ahead of its trading debut expected next Thursday—until the FTC letter arrived.

[sadeyedlady-writes]

Ok I should do an actual thoughtful post on this but instead I’m just gonna go off on a ramble. (I’m not a historian or a financial expert btw)

So I have always been interested in the discrepancy between Mitya’s assertion to Alyosha near the beginning that Grushenka “liked to make a bit of dough and made it by lending at wicked rates of interest, the cunning vixen, the rogue, without mercy.” (McDuff translation 1.3.5) and the narrator’s assertion in 3.7.3 “Not that she ever lent money on interest”. At first I chalked it up to Mitya just making assumptions about her, since he does say some things that are incorrect (for instance that Samsonov will leave her a considerable sum of money when he dies, when it is well known that he said he wouldn’t and, sure enough, did not even mention her in the will). However, I did think it was odd that a profit-motivated professional moneylender would never lend money on interest, and it feels even more odd now that I know there was a legal annual interest limit (6%). If it was legal to lend on interest, why wouldn’t she?

Well. I’m now reading the very fascinating Bankrupts and Usurers of Imperial Russia: Debt, Property, and the Law in the Age of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy by Sergei Antonov. And it’s fascinating getting context on all of this—and, bear in mind, context that Dostoevsky’s audience would have taken for granted.

There were a lot of regulatory laws that existed around moneylending and debt collecting, as usury was extremely frowned-upon legally, religiously, and socially. But these laws were very difficult to enforce, especially since moneylenders had all kinds of ways of skirting around them and hiding their more predatory practises. Besides, according to the above-mentioned reference work, “even at the highest levels the government realized that it was both impossible and undesirable to eliminate interest rates that exceeded the legally mandated maximum.” So, Antonov goes on to relate:

For example, an 1861 memo prepared by one of the tsar’s closest aides and a general in the Corps of Gendarmes, Ivan Annenkov, recognized that usurers in Russia enjoyed “complete immunity” but urged that “we must not [condemn as usurers] all persons who loan money for interest, even if under private agreements such interest would exceed the limit defined by the law. Everybody knows that no one has so far placed his capital in private hands in return for the legal 6% . . . [government’s policies] must not touch upon those private obligations and conditions that are founded upon mutual benefit.” Annenkov proposed a systematic procedure of identifying as many individual lenders as possible and then focusing on those known to engage in particularly abusive practices.

So this guy was like “yeah, even though what they’re doing is technically not legal, we kind of agree with it actually, and so instead of going after people based on the letter of the law, let’s just keep an eye on known moneylenders and go after the ones who are really crossing the line and hurting people.

Which meant that the police did keep detailed records of known moneylenders, and to the shock of absolutely no one, the notes beside the names in these records were heavily interested in the personal character of each lender. Political leanings, religion, whether they had a family, whether they were landowners, their morals and conduct, etc. I’m sure none of this led to any kind of discrimination in terms of who was allowed to get away with predatory moneylending practises and who was prosecuted for the very same. (Heavy sarcasm) 

Since Grushenka did not have a powerful family behind her and was widely known to be a fallen woman and Kuzma Samsonov’s mistress (despite the fact that she was definitively known not to be promiscuous and to reject the advances of any other men who tried it), it’s very likely to me that she would be under special scrutiny, especially in a small town where there weren’t as many moneylenders to keep an eye on as there were in, say, St. Petersburg. Given that she received a lot of business advice from Samsonov, and some of this advice might very likely have included those methods of getting away with practises of dubious legality without leaving a paper trail, and given the necessity of her being extra careful in order not to be prosecuted, it would make sense that the narrator (being himself a character and resident of the town, and thus only able to report things to us based on the information he has available and how it appears to him,) would not have any information or records available to him which would suggest that she was lending on interest at all, let alone above the legal rates. Given the strong negative feelings against usury, making such an accusation or implication without evidence would be highly slanderous, and the narrator would be unwise to risk that, thus his statement that Grushenka did not lend on interest at all.

Whereas it is possible that, given Mitya’s close association with Grushenka during the past month and the fact that she does confide some things in him (her feelings about Alyosha, letting him read the letter her officer sent, laughing about Fyodor’s scheme to have him jailed, etc.), he may have known something the narrator didn’t. Of course, it’s also possible that he was just making an assumption that happened to be correct, or at least more plausible than the narrator’s.

And I think that Dostoevsky meant for the narrator’s assertion that she never lent on interest to seem highly improbable, even implausible, given that his audience would have been very familiar with the widespread business of moneylending across all classes of society, and how it operated. Again, if there was a legal maximum interest rate, and plentiful ways to get away with illegally lending above that maximum rate, then why would a professional moneylender consistently lend money on no interest at all? She would at the very least be lending on legal rates to make a profit off of the interest, and more than likely at illegal rates as well, simply taking care to do so covertly. And I think the original audience would have understood this implicitly.

Hope this was somewhat coherent.

[probablyasocialecologist]

“It works very well for the industry to frame every technology that they put out into the world — whether it’s crypto or generative AI, or whatever else — as an innovation that we must pursue,” Paris Marx, host of the Tech Won’t Save Us podcast, tells me. “But Silicon Valley and venture capitalists are not actually interested in developing technology for the betterment of society . . . What they’re interested in is making money off of whatever hype cycle they are going to gin up next.” Sometimes the problem with innovation is that while the idea in question might be new, it is not actually very useful: it is a solution looking for a problem, as in the case of blockchain technology. And sometimes the problem is that the innovation, while not without its uses, is incredibly harmful: synthetic opioids have provided millions of people with pain relief, but they have also created an overdose epidemic, killing almost 80,000 Americans in 2022 and helping to drive US life expectancy down to a 25-year low. Why is it, therefore, that we have come to see “innovation” as such an unalloyed good, and why is “stifling” it so unequivocally bad? Surely the objective of the innovation — and the possible repercussions — should matter, too. Innovation might be crucial in making progress in all sorts of areas, such as medicine or science, but we seem to have got to a place where it is the idea itself that we venerate. That is wrong-headed: innovation should not be seen as an end in itself, but as a means of making something better. Crypto might be novel but that does not make it useful or valuable to society. We cannot go on imagining that all innovation is a force for good. In practice, “innovation” often just means exploiting gaps in existing rules until the regulators catch up — so called “regulatory arbitrage”, a strategy that the crypto industry has very successfully deployed and indeed relied upon. Unfortunately for these ingenious crypto “innovators”, catching up is exactly what regulators are now doing.

[mudwerks]

(via Music Licensing Powerhouse BMI Is Being Sold to a Private Equity Firm | Pitchfork)

BMI, the music licensing agency that represents thousands of songwriters, has announced that it will sell to the private equity firm New Mountain Capital, The New York Times reports. Terms of the deal have yet to be disclosed; in August, Billboard cited sources claiming the deal could be worth $1.7 billion. The sale needs to be approved by shareholders and undergo “customary regulatory approvals.” The two sides expect the deal to close by the end of 2024’s first quarter.

After announcing that it would change over to a for-profit model before considering a sale of the company, BMI faced scrutiny over the change from songwriter groups. BMI and ASCAP are the two major licensing agencies which distribute royalties to songwriters and publishers from songs being played via the radio, online streaming, and in retail settings.

[acceptccnow]

Mastering Credit Card Processing in High-Risk E-Commerce

Article by Jonathan Bomser | CEO | Accept-Credit-Cards-Now.com

In the fast-paced world of online commerce, the ability to accept credit card payments is undeniably paramount for businesses striving to thrive. However, when your enterprise operates within a high-risk industry, navigating the intricate landscape of credit card processing can be quite an imposing challenge. Fear not, for we are about to embark on a journey into the realm of high-risk credit card processing, unveiling the secrets that will empower your high-risk e-commerce venture to ascend to unprecedented heights.

DOWNLOAD THE MASTERING CREDIT CARD PROCESSING INFOGRAPHIC HERE

Unveiling the Potentials of High-Risk Credit Card Processing High-risk credit card processing serves as a vital lifeline for numerous e-commerce enterprises entrenched within industries that conventional financial institutions consider riskier. Whether your business specializes in credit repair, CBD products, or any other high-risk sector, the capacity to embrace credit card payments not only widens the customer base but also ushers in increased revenue streams.

Delving Deeper into High-Risk Payment Processing Payment processing within high-risk sectors necessitates specialized solutions that have been meticulously designed to cater to businesses that are burdened with a higher probability of chargebacks, fraud, or regulatory scrutiny. These specialized services ensure that even high-risk merchants can competently and securely manage credit card payments.

The Role of Merchant Accounts and Processing Merchant accounts stand as the linchpin of credit card processing, offering businesses the vital infrastructure required for accepting and processing credit card payments. High-risk payment processing is a multifaceted solution that not only empowers businesses to process credit card transactions but also effectively mitigates the distinctive risks entwined with their respective industries. Within this context, we explore the key components that underscore the indispensability of high-risk payment processing. A high-risk payment gateway emerges as a vital conduit between your e-commerce website and the payment processor, meticulously transmitting transaction data and safeguarding the sanctity of sensitive customer information.

For high-risk industries, the presence of a sturdy payment gateway is an imperative necessity. Acquiring a high-risk merchant account often acts as the inaugural step for businesses entrenched within these sectors. This specialized account is painstakingly tailored to address your unique requisites and proffers the essential flexibility to confront the innate challenges associated with high-risk credit card processing. In a world where e-commerce reigns supreme, it becomes imperative for high-risk businesses to adopt e-commerce payment processing solutions, which have been meticulously optimized for online transactions. These solutions assure customers a seamless and secure payment experience.

Embracing Credit Card Payments for Credit Repair, CBD, and Beyond For enterprises specializing in credit repair or CBD products, the significance of being able to accept credit cards cannot be overstated. Customers are often drawn to the ease and convenience of credit card payments, and the provision of this option can substantially elevate your sales. Nevertheless, it is absolutely pivotal to collaborate with a payment processing provider that specializes in high-risk credit card processing, thus guaranteeing compliance and security.

The Profits of Credit Card Payment Processing for High-Risk Sectors By offering credit card payments, you effectively broaden your business's horizons to a more extensive customer base. Countless consumers are partial to the convenience and security that credit cards offer during online purchases. Credit card payments are indelibly associated with a heightened level of trust. When customers observe that your enterprise accepts credit cards, it bolsters their confidence in your brand and can culminate in higher conversion rates. Specialized high-risk credit card processing solutions are impeccably equipped to tackle the unique challenges that your industry poses, effectively minimizing the risks of chargebacks and fraud. Efficient payment processing optimizes your operations, freeing you to channel your focus towards business growth rather than squandering precious time grappling with payment-related concerns.

The Influence of SEO in High-Risk Credit Card Processing In the digital epoch, an online presence is unequivocally indispensable, a truism that holds particular weight within high-risk industries. The strategic deployment of effective SEO strategies has the potential to catapult your high-risk e-commerce business to unprecedented heights. When prospective customers embark on searches for high-risk credit card processing, credit repair merchant processing, or CBD payment processing, your website should indisputably secure a place among the top search results.

Mastering high-risk credit card processing is undeniably a game-changer for businesses navigating the tumultuous waters of challenging industries. By gaining a profound understanding of the intricacies of payment processing within high-risk sectors and harnessing the untapped potential of credit card payments, you can firmly position your business for sustained growth and lasting success. Thus, whether you operate within the domain of credit repair, CBD products, or any other high-risk industry, the moment has arrived to wholeheartedly embrace the world of high-risk credit card processing and witness the ascension of your e-commerce venture.