Apparently it was video clips originally posted, but it seems like posting unpublished(?) copy of any type can fall under DMCA, which I guess makes sense.
-> [HBO Lawyer] classifies the infringing content as 'summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series'
A summary can't be a matter of copyright. It's probably just the vehicle HBO chose to be able to identify the leaker, because claiming copyright infringement these days is like a superpower, and then use different hammer to go after them.
This is a legally tricky minefield. Depending on what is in summary, it -may- be subject to copyright but be protected as fair use... but a work being unpublished weighs against (but does not preclude) free use.
I could see an argument that it is a trade secret, too-- which could be used to oppose downstream dissemination.
I think it'd pretty much have to be a script, a screenshot, audio, or video to qualify as copyright infringement. I can tell you what a song is about without risk of violating copyright, but the moment I start quoting lyrics things get riskier.
I think it depends on the depth of the summary, and the purpose. You can do quite an indepth analysis as part of educational material for example, which is one of the tests of fair use.
I think a key thing to remember when assessing your own liability is fair use is a defense, not an automatic guaranteed right for blanket uses.
Leaking spoilers of unpublished works can definitely cause market harm, and serves no wider good for the market the same way educational material would.
I wouldn't like to be on the receiving side of this lawsuit. At the very least it's going to be expensive to defend against.
That's the rub. When it comes to copyright, money makes right. The one with more money and willingness to go to court will win. Not who is actually legally right.
That's not just copyright, it's our entire legal system. A corporation can intentionally murder hundreds of thousands of people and get nothing but a slap on the wrist fine.
The issued subpoena requires X to share information sufficient to identify the person behind the account. This includes names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, account numbers, IP addresses, and any other contact or billing records held by the platform.
Taking TF's reporting at face value, would twitter be able to sufficiently identify a user? Does Twitter have the address, real names, etc. of its users?
Twitter has IP addresses at the very least. HBO will then subpoena the account's ISP. If the account had the checkmark pro plan or whatever it's called, it may have or be able to obtain legal name and address for payment details, or its payment processor (Stripe I think) would.
The only thing that falls apart is the IP address identification, which is only a very small signal for identifying an internet user. X/Twitter undoubtedly has more identity information than just an IP address.
Doesn't matter if the device you used phoned home with your IP address and any kind of identifier. Your OS that sends telemetry every 7 seconds, a windows update check, another tab with a social media account open. It's easy to cross reference that stuff and figure out what a person's regular ISP is. Almost nobody uses a VPN 100% of the time and at the router (because your OS will phone home before you desktop finishes loading).
Twitter won't have your various device IDs and VPN IPs are typically shared among many clients simultaneously. You could certainly generate a suspect list but I don't think you'll get conclusive evidence.
That said I don't know how much browser fingerprinting Twitter might be doing and if fingerprints from other services might be possible to crossreference. Much higher risk is probably visiting other sites both with and without the VPN using the same browser without thinking about it and thus leaking your fingerprint or even account cookies that way. Or if you don't run a filter then visiting a site without the VPN that embeds Twitter tracking assets would leak to them directly.
You're right that you can end up with a suspect list instead of a direct answer, but it shouldn't be hard to narrow it down from there, especially in a case like this where most people wouldn't have access to privileged info about unaired shows to start with. It also helps if you have more than one IP address to start with. You can end up with multiple suspect lists, but only one or two people who show up on all of them.
At which point twitter will probably yell at you to "verify" with a phone number or something else tied to your government name. Yes you could probably go get a prepaid SIM for cash (depending on your country, many now ban this though America doesn't) but very few people bother with it. Or they just lock your account and demand your ID which I think they now sometimes do.
There are so many more ways one could screw up, and you only need to screw up once. For example, does X do browser fingerprinting and did you ever use similar setup to use a more identifiable Twitter account? Are you using unique phrasings or behavioral patterns? These things can be solved to a satisfactory degree, but I don't think "it's not hard" captures it - for an average user it _is_ hard.
> Are you using unique phrasings or behavioral patterns?
Why would Twitter voluntarily run that sort of query to satisfy a subpoena?
Whether it's difficult and risky for the average user depends on the threat model. "Twitter doesn't directly have my name, address, or phone number sitting in their database next to my account" is easy. Other things are more difficult.
Phrasing idiosyncrasies are publicly observable and anyone can note - as external observers did in Kaczynski or Hanssen cases - that a particular phrasing is quaint. It is probably true that Twitter is unlikely to run a browser fingerprinting query to de-anonymize someone tweeting spoilers from a softcore porn show. But a potential leaker has to ask: "how sure am I of that?"
Isn't that how it always worked? You guys never heard of these things before?
You sue the social media to get the IP at time, then sue ISP with the reference to that suit to get IRL identity from IP + time, then sue the person using that IRL identity. Some parts of this has been simplified because courts having to process 3 lawsuits to move just couple grands for just a "@username I murder you this particular way and time" is ridiculous.
What if the accused used Tor or foreign VPN? I guess the matter goes to local FBI equivalent?
If it's the IP of a VPN the next step is to send legal requests to Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Cloudflare, Steam, Google, popular MMOs, and video/music streaming services for all the information associated with that IP address around the same time.
Unless someone spent a lot of effort to avoid it, any person with a IP address probably had something that established a connection at some point to one of those companies and that connection probably contained an identifier of some kind.
It might have been a software update check, some user telemetry, a browser tab open to social media, a connection to icloud etc.
Once you get a match you ask that company for a list of every IP address that was ever used by that user/account, and in that list you should get a bunch of connections from an IP that belongs to a regular ISP. Very few people are using a VPN 100% of the time.
Reminds me of the Snape Kills Dumbledore spoiler initiative that happened in 2005, where people would drive around bookstores with people yelling in line and spoiling it.
Admittedly, kind of a dick move, but I have to admit I did find it kind of funny at the time.
I think a truly good piece of media is one where even if you have things spoiled you can still get a reaction. All things considered the main character pretty much always wins/lives and the main villain pretty much always loses/dies. And one I've noticed a lot is that the first even possible romantic interest is most likely who they'll end up with if they end up with anyone. It's not foolproof but I'd put a bit of money on it. It's the in between that matters.
To go a step further, sure he killed Dumbledore but without knowing why, and without knowing the real why that's revealed later, only a small part of the fun is lost. That's what makes it re-watchable to me. I'll remember the twists and the endings, but the emotions and the minutae are what keep me watching.
Finding something funny doesn't necessarily imply you endorse the behavior, believe it to be harmless fun, or even that you don't feel sorry for the victim.
There's entire categories of entertainment media that use "unfortunate things happening to strangers" for comedic effect.
I doubt that. Someone who doesn't like reading wouldn't think of "spoiling a book" as a prank category that comes to mind or understands it to be a serious upset rather than just slightly annoying. Also, they'd likely feel that going to a bookstore and shouting things relating to a book serious is "cringe" or whatever you want to call it, if they aren't the type to even go to a bookstore in the first place.
All it takes is one person to go "I did this" and then the others have a good troll/joke to use. Doesn't take a lot of effort and people were more outgoing back then.
I actually liked reading and I was a nerdy kid. To be clear, I never actively participated in the spoiler stuff, just read about the reactions.
I mean, keep in mind I was fourteen when this happened, and fourteen year old boys are very often assholes and I was sadly not an exception to this.
I guess I just found it funny how much of a reaction people had with it. I liked the Harry Potter books too, I was reading them like every other fourteen year old was, and the plot being spoiled for me didn't really bother me very much, cuz, you know, it's just a book. Some people really got upset.
Again, definitely a dick move to do that, and a dick move for me to find it amusing. Kids are douchebags.
I don't know if I think it's funny, but I'm probably equally curious about two points. I do think that the journey is as important as the destination. I spoil things for myself all the time, mostly because I'm just always out of step with pop culture. It doesn't really impede my enjoyment of a well made book/game/film if I know some plot beats ahead of time. If you're just in it for the major plot twists, why not just read the wikipedia synopsis?
Also, there's the assumption that it was a real spoiler. It's not immediately verifiable. What if people were yelling "Snape kills Harry"? Why did the people in line assume the guy yelling into the night was being truthful, or that weirdly cropped images of pages weren't just photoshopped?
lots of modern comedy revolves around people who should know better being petty little jerks and doing stupid things that actually don't cause any real damage but just makes everybody wonder "why is this idiot such a pathetic asshole?!?"
Not sure about funny, but the schadenfreude from spoiling a plot like this may come from spoilers seeing themselves as being “other” or feeling excluded from a group where the fascination with the media (Harry Potter fans) is the common trait.
You may not want to be a Harry Potter fan, but seeing people obsessed with it and gathering around it may make you feel isolated
My wife and I have decided there is one thing that it's universally okay for us to spoil to one another in a book, movie, etc.: if the cat/dog survives till the end.
I feel like "pain" is a strong word here. It was a book spoiler. I wasn't laughing at people being punched or hurt or anything.
I acknowledge it's a dick move, but it really is just a spoiler for a book, not exactly life ruining and really shouldn't even be day-ruining. I had the book spoiled for me too and it was just something I moved on from, somehow.
> not exactly life ruining and really shouldn't even be day-ruining.
These were people who lined up for hours outside of a bookstore still waiting to get in after midnight. Many of those people were young and the lack of perspective and experience at young ages often results in assigning a disproportionate weight to the emotional events they experience. An event like that might not have been day-ruining for you, but I have no doubt that there were people who were genuinely hurt by it.
Maybe you forget the absolute hysteria around these books. People were passionate about learning what happened next, and incredibly excited for the reveal to happen organically.
This was done because it was the easiest way to massively distribute pain to people about a known weak spot. It was mean spirited, anti-social, and honestly indefensible.
To be clear, I'm not sitting in judgment of you or any of the other spoiler trolls, not back then and certainly not now. This is an instance where the Potter-philes couldn't fight back, and to my mind that's inevitably going to bring out the worst in human nature.
Elsethread, you mention that "some people really got upset.". In some sense, the more upset they get, the more successful the troll and the funnier it gets, right? At least, it feels funny to me, at the same time as it also feels bad to imagine upset kids, at the same time as feeling that upset kids learning that other humans are cruel is a necessary part of growing up.
You're not equipped to know what the right word is for anyone but yourself. You go through life curious about the vast diversity of mindsets rather than assuming they're homogenous.
I think it's extremely hard to argue that kids tend to be emotionally immature and especially vicious in this regard. But considering the GP has admitted that in retrospect they find this action to be a dick move I think it's important not to try and generalize immature behavior to all of humanity.
The question of whether humans are more biased towards social or antisocial behavior[1] is a complex one that philosophy has struggled with for a long time without a clear consensus.
1. Often historically framed as whether humans are inherently good or evil.
There's never going to be philosophical consensus on the "good/evil/social/antisocial" debate because the human impulse to self-justify and believe that you're the "good guy" is extremely powerful. Those of us who seek to understand human nature have to proceed without consensus as a goal.
Mao Zedong was able to convince kids and teenagers to have their parents and teachers killed during the Cultural Revolution by convincing them that it was prosocial behavior, and indeed their duty. So the question is fraught with conundrums of the form "humans tend to prosocial/antisocial according to which standard?"
I'd rather remind people that only a very small number of dicks have any desire or interest in inflicting pain on their fellow humans even when there were no consequences.
Assholes do exist, and you should be aware of them, but assholes are a tiny minority of the population. There are far more people who aren't assholes, and an even greater number of people who are just doing their own thing and can't be bothered to go through the effort to hurt others just for kicks.
I understand the temptation to Streisand this, but for the love of, please don't. S1/2 were the best show I've seen on TV. It would be a crime against good taste.
I have never used X/Twitter so I don't know how it works, but don't you have to seek out an account in order to read it? X won't just throw a spoiler at you unsolicited, right?
If it catches engagement, the main firehose feed will show it. They've begun using Grok and AI processes, which is hit and miss, but definitely improving.
Having Japanese, French, other countries' tweets automatically translated back and forth has been fun, too. It'll be interesting to see where it gets to in the next few years.
The other day, I looked at the trending topics. Top one was "Lesbians". I was wondering if there was some kind of development in politics. Nope.
It was all porn. I was on a call with a friend and he checked from his account too and it was there as well, so this wasn't some kinda A/B test thing. It disappeared after a bit. My point is the algo is a bit wonky.
Twitter had always been the modern day Playboy mag from Sci-Fi era. So there's Bradbury, Lenna, geopolitics, all bound in one.
The catch is it's a UGC based algorithmic system with instant feedback, which means the fastest adapting contents with most bandwidth absolutely wins, which tends to be, like that.
Does anyone have the solution to this problem anyway? I thought this was always inevitable on WWW.
Not with 600m organic global active users. The platform moral compass must align to the performance weighted sum total of its user, rather than the other way around.
Trying to bend the platform morality to suit your idealisms seriously ruin yours over time.
I don't see how seeing the current feed of words and going "not this one" before they go online is difficult. You could literally filter 10 per minute and clean up the misfires
> Unlike the DMCA notice, where WBD used “video” to describe the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”.
Isn't that simply about spoiling people, or what's the "crime" here? The article also says "Copyright generally protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas or plot descriptions", so I'm still unsure what the actual issue is, besides the misuse of DMCA.
Most likely the culprit is someone on their staff that broke their NDA contract, but the DMCA is about stopping the proliferation of copyrighted material. They are misusing the DMCA because it has higher discovery/subpoena ability.
> but the DMCA is about stopping the proliferation of copyrighted material.
If the videos posted to twitter were just summaries and not actual video of the unreleased show it seems unlikely that there was any copyrighted material being proliferated
Under the DMCA, you can claim copyright over damn near anything and force a provider to take it down. If there is any ambiguity as to whether you are the owner of the allegedly copyrighted material, like for example legitimate fair use, they still are required to take it down—unless the alleged violator files a DMCA counterclaim in which they must supply their legal name and address to the original claimant. This has been used to silence, or deanonymize, people who post unpleasant things about a powerful person or organization.
The crime is that we're living in a society where different laws apply to corporations than to people. If a corporation doesn't like you, you're toast, no matter whether you're wrong or right.
There are enough laws that they'll find something to nail you on.
Unlike the DMCA notice, where WBD used “video” to describe the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”.
This distinction may matter, as a summary of a plot may not enjoy the same protection as a leaked video. Copyright generally protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas or plot descriptions.
I interpret that as they just didn't like that someone posted the summary, and they are trying to use the DMCA to do a job that wasn't intended by the law's creators.
If it's not actual video material but just talk about what happens in the next episode before it's released, does that really fall under copyright?
I can see it being an NDA breach or something but otherwise not
Apparently it was video clips originally posted, but it seems like posting unpublished(?) copy of any type can fall under DMCA, which I guess makes sense.
-> [HBO Lawyer] classifies the infringing content as 'summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series'
A summary can't be a matter of copyright. It's probably just the vehicle HBO chose to be able to identify the leaker, because claiming copyright infringement these days is like a superpower, and then use different hammer to go after them.
This is a legally tricky minefield. Depending on what is in summary, it -may- be subject to copyright but be protected as fair use... but a work being unpublished weighs against (but does not preclude) free use.
I could see an argument that it is a trade secret, too-- which could be used to oppose downstream dissemination.
I think it'd pretty much have to be a script, a screenshot, audio, or video to qualify as copyright infringement. I can tell you what a song is about without risk of violating copyright, but the moment I start quoting lyrics things get riskier.
I think it depends on the depth of the summary, and the purpose. You can do quite an indepth analysis as part of educational material for example, which is one of the tests of fair use.
I think a key thing to remember when assessing your own liability is fair use is a defense, not an automatic guaranteed right for blanket uses.
Leaking spoilers of unpublished works can definitely cause market harm, and serves no wider good for the market the same way educational material would.
I wouldn't like to be on the receiving side of this lawsuit. At the very least it's going to be expensive to defend against.
That's the rub. When it comes to copyright, money makes right. The one with more money and willingness to go to court will win. Not who is actually legally right.
That's not just copyright, it's our entire legal system. A corporation can intentionally murder hundreds of thousands of people and get nothing but a slap on the wrist fine.
That too makes sense.
The issued subpoena requires X to share information sufficient to identify the person behind the account. This includes names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, account numbers, IP addresses, and any other contact or billing records held by the platform.
Taking TF's reporting at face value, would twitter be able to sufficiently identify a user? Does Twitter have the address, real names, etc. of its users?
Twitter has IP addresses at the very least. HBO will then subpoena the account's ISP. If the account had the checkmark pro plan or whatever it's called, it may have or be able to obtain legal name and address for payment details, or its payment processor (Stripe I think) would.
And all of this falls apart if you use Mullvad, who will be happy to fax HBO lawyers a blank sheet of paper.
> all of this falls apart if you use Mullvad
The only thing that falls apart is the IP address identification, which is only a very small signal for identifying an internet user. X/Twitter undoubtedly has more identity information than just an IP address.
Doesn't matter if the device you used phoned home with your IP address and any kind of identifier. Your OS that sends telemetry every 7 seconds, a windows update check, another tab with a social media account open. It's easy to cross reference that stuff and figure out what a person's regular ISP is. Almost nobody uses a VPN 100% of the time and at the router (because your OS will phone home before you desktop finishes loading).
Twitter won't have your various device IDs and VPN IPs are typically shared among many clients simultaneously. You could certainly generate a suspect list but I don't think you'll get conclusive evidence.
That said I don't know how much browser fingerprinting Twitter might be doing and if fingerprints from other services might be possible to crossreference. Much higher risk is probably visiting other sites both with and without the VPN using the same browser without thinking about it and thus leaking your fingerprint or even account cookies that way. Or if you don't run a filter then visiting a site without the VPN that embeds Twitter tracking assets would leak to them directly.
You're right that you can end up with a suspect list instead of a direct answer, but it shouldn't be hard to narrow it down from there, especially in a case like this where most people wouldn't have access to privileged info about unaired shows to start with. It also helps if you have more than one IP address to start with. You can end up with multiple suspect lists, but only one or two people who show up on all of them.
At which point twitter will probably yell at you to "verify" with a phone number or something else tied to your government name. Yes you could probably go get a prepaid SIM for cash (depending on your country, many now ban this though America doesn't) but very few people bother with it. Or they just lock your account and demand your ID which I think they now sometimes do.
You can pay $5 for a verification phone number. It's not hard.
There are so many more ways one could screw up, and you only need to screw up once. For example, does X do browser fingerprinting and did you ever use similar setup to use a more identifiable Twitter account? Are you using unique phrasings or behavioral patterns? These things can be solved to a satisfactory degree, but I don't think "it's not hard" captures it - for an average user it _is_ hard.
> Are you using unique phrasings or behavioral patterns?
Why would Twitter voluntarily run that sort of query to satisfy a subpoena?
Whether it's difficult and risky for the average user depends on the threat model. "Twitter doesn't directly have my name, address, or phone number sitting in their database next to my account" is easy. Other things are more difficult.
Phrasing idiosyncrasies are publicly observable and anyone can note - as external observers did in Kaczynski or Hanssen cases - that a particular phrasing is quaint. It is probably true that Twitter is unlikely to run a browser fingerprinting query to de-anonymize someone tweeting spoilers from a softcore porn show. But a potential leaker has to ask: "how sure am I of that?"
Isn't that how it always worked? You guys never heard of these things before?
You sue the social media to get the IP at time, then sue ISP with the reference to that suit to get IRL identity from IP + time, then sue the person using that IRL identity. Some parts of this has been simplified because courts having to process 3 lawsuits to move just couple grands for just a "@username I murder you this particular way and time" is ridiculous.
What if the accused used Tor or foreign VPN? I guess the matter goes to local FBI equivalent?
If it's the IP of a VPN the next step is to send legal requests to Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Cloudflare, Steam, Google, popular MMOs, and video/music streaming services for all the information associated with that IP address around the same time.
Unless someone spent a lot of effort to avoid it, any person with a IP address probably had something that established a connection at some point to one of those companies and that connection probably contained an identifier of some kind. It might have been a software update check, some user telemetry, a browser tab open to social media, a connection to icloud etc.
Once you get a match you ask that company for a list of every IP address that was ever used by that user/account, and in that list you should get a bunch of connections from an IP that belongs to a regular ISP. Very few people are using a VPN 100% of the time.
Twitter only supported 2FA using a mobile number for several years, so they quite possibly have that.
People are not always good at infosec for convenience, and Twitter's design for this was incompetent even before Musk's acquisition.
Reminds me of the Snape Kills Dumbledore spoiler initiative that happened in 2005, where people would drive around bookstores with people yelling in line and spoiling it.
Admittedly, kind of a dick move, but I have to admit I did find it kind of funny at the time.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/snape-kills-dumbledore
I think a truly good piece of media is one where even if you have things spoiled you can still get a reaction. All things considered the main character pretty much always wins/lives and the main villain pretty much always loses/dies. And one I've noticed a lot is that the first even possible romantic interest is most likely who they'll end up with if they end up with anyone. It's not foolproof but I'd put a bit of money on it. It's the in between that matters.
To go a step further, sure he killed Dumbledore but without knowing why, and without knowing the real why that's revealed later, only a small part of the fun is lost. That's what makes it re-watchable to me. I'll remember the twists and the endings, but the emotions and the minutae are what keep me watching.
Can you describe what you found funny at the time? I'm genuinely curious what motivates behavior like this.
Finding something funny doesn't necessarily imply you endorse the behavior, believe it to be harmless fun, or even that you don't feel sorry for the victim.
There's entire categories of entertainment media that use "unfortunate things happening to strangers" for comedic effect.
"Ow! My Balls!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWfOMeLk6m0
"go way i'm batin"
It was people that didn't like reading or nerdy kids, trying to spoil their interests.
I doubt that. Someone who doesn't like reading wouldn't think of "spoiling a book" as a prank category that comes to mind or understands it to be a serious upset rather than just slightly annoying. Also, they'd likely feel that going to a bookstore and shouting things relating to a book serious is "cringe" or whatever you want to call it, if they aren't the type to even go to a bookstore in the first place.
All it takes is one person to go "I did this" and then the others have a good troll/joke to use. Doesn't take a lot of effort and people were more outgoing back then.
I actually liked reading and I was a nerdy kid. To be clear, I never actively participated in the spoiler stuff, just read about the reactions.
I mean, keep in mind I was fourteen when this happened, and fourteen year old boys are very often assholes and I was sadly not an exception to this.
I guess I just found it funny how much of a reaction people had with it. I liked the Harry Potter books too, I was reading them like every other fourteen year old was, and the plot being spoiled for me didn't really bother me very much, cuz, you know, it's just a book. Some people really got upset.
Again, definitely a dick move to do that, and a dick move for me to find it amusing. Kids are douchebags.
Did you also find videos of guys waiting in line at stores to buy consoles, then smashing them in front of the people who were still in line funny?
I don't know if I think it's funny, but I'm probably equally curious about two points. I do think that the journey is as important as the destination. I spoil things for myself all the time, mostly because I'm just always out of step with pop culture. It doesn't really impede my enjoyment of a well made book/game/film if I know some plot beats ahead of time. If you're just in it for the major plot twists, why not just read the wikipedia synopsis?
Also, there's the assumption that it was a real spoiler. It's not immediately verifiable. What if people were yelling "Snape kills Harry"? Why did the people in line assume the guy yelling into the night was being truthful, or that weirdly cropped images of pages weren't just photoshopped?
lots of modern comedy revolves around people who should know better being petty little jerks and doing stupid things that actually don't cause any real damage but just makes everybody wonder "why is this idiot such a pathetic asshole?!?"
It’s about 20 years old, so the likely answer: they were under 18
Not sure about funny, but the schadenfreude from spoiling a plot like this may come from spoilers seeing themselves as being “other” or feeling excluded from a group where the fascination with the media (Harry Potter fans) is the common trait. You may not want to be a Harry Potter fan, but seeing people obsessed with it and gathering around it may make you feel isolated
The funnier version was people doing it during the next book's release.
My wife and I have decided there is one thing that it's universally okay for us to spoil to one another in a book, movie, etc.: if the cat/dog survives till the end.
A mild reminder that humans tend towards inflicting pain on their fellow humans when there are no consequences.
I feel like "pain" is a strong word here. It was a book spoiler. I wasn't laughing at people being punched or hurt or anything.
I acknowledge it's a dick move, but it really is just a spoiler for a book, not exactly life ruining and really shouldn't even be day-ruining. I had the book spoiled for me too and it was just something I moved on from, somehow.
> not exactly life ruining and really shouldn't even be day-ruining.
These were people who lined up for hours outside of a bookstore still waiting to get in after midnight. Many of those people were young and the lack of perspective and experience at young ages often results in assigning a disproportionate weight to the emotional events they experience. An event like that might not have been day-ruining for you, but I have no doubt that there were people who were genuinely hurt by it.
Maybe you forget the absolute hysteria around these books. People were passionate about learning what happened next, and incredibly excited for the reveal to happen organically.
This was done because it was the easiest way to massively distribute pain to people about a known weak spot. It was mean spirited, anti-social, and honestly indefensible.
If it isn't what's the defense?
To be clear, I'm not sitting in judgment of you or any of the other spoiler trolls, not back then and certainly not now. This is an instance where the Potter-philes couldn't fight back, and to my mind that's inevitably going to bring out the worst in human nature.
Elsethread, you mention that "some people really got upset.". In some sense, the more upset they get, the more successful the troll and the funnier it gets, right? At least, it feels funny to me, at the same time as it also feels bad to imagine upset kids, at the same time as feeling that upset kids learning that other humans are cruel is a necessary part of growing up.
You're not equipped to know what the right word is for anyone but yourself. You go through life curious about the vast diversity of mindsets rather than assuming they're homogenous.
I think it's extremely hard to argue that kids tend to be emotionally immature and especially vicious in this regard. But considering the GP has admitted that in retrospect they find this action to be a dick move I think it's important not to try and generalize immature behavior to all of humanity.
The question of whether humans are more biased towards social or antisocial behavior[1] is a complex one that philosophy has struggled with for a long time without a clear consensus.
1. Often historically framed as whether humans are inherently good or evil.
There's never going to be philosophical consensus on the "good/evil/social/antisocial" debate because the human impulse to self-justify and believe that you're the "good guy" is extremely powerful. Those of us who seek to understand human nature have to proceed without consensus as a goal.
Mao Zedong was able to convince kids and teenagers to have their parents and teachers killed during the Cultural Revolution by convincing them that it was prosocial behavior, and indeed their duty. So the question is fraught with conundrums of the form "humans tend to prosocial/antisocial according to which standard?"
I'd rather remind people that only a very small number of dicks have any desire or interest in inflicting pain on their fellow humans even when there were no consequences.
Assholes do exist, and you should be aware of them, but assholes are a tiny minority of the population. There are far more people who aren't assholes, and an even greater number of people who are just doing their own thing and can't be bothered to go through the effort to hurt others just for kicks.
I understand the temptation to Streisand this, but for the love of, please don't. S1/2 were the best show I've seen on TV. It would be a crime against good taste.
I have never used X/Twitter so I don't know how it works, but don't you have to seek out an account in order to read it? X won't just throw a spoiler at you unsolicited, right?
https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm
If it catches engagement, the main firehose feed will show it. They've begun using Grok and AI processes, which is hit and miss, but definitely improving.
Having Japanese, French, other countries' tweets automatically translated back and forth has been fun, too. It'll be interesting to see where it gets to in the next few years.
I don't believe that is/was the real, complete algorithm. It has no 'boost elon' code
The other day, I looked at the trending topics. Top one was "Lesbians". I was wondering if there was some kind of development in politics. Nope.
It was all porn. I was on a call with a friend and he checked from his account too and it was there as well, so this wasn't some kinda A/B test thing. It disappeared after a bit. My point is the algo is a bit wonky.
Twitter had always been the modern day Playboy mag from Sci-Fi era. So there's Bradbury, Lenna, geopolitics, all bound in one.
The catch is it's a UGC based algorithmic system with instant feedback, which means the fastest adapting contents with most bandwidth absolutely wins, which tends to be, like that.
Does anyone have the solution to this problem anyway? I thought this was always inevitable on WWW.
You’d think one person eyeballing topics and flagging stuff would solve it
Not with 600m organic global active users. The platform moral compass must align to the performance weighted sum total of its user, rather than the other way around.
Trying to bend the platform morality to suit your idealisms seriously ruin yours over time.
I don't see how seeing the current feed of words and going "not this one" before they go online is difficult. You could literally filter 10 per minute and clean up the misfires
No there is a feed, if you follow a topic such as a show you probably will get exposed to it.
I think they algorithmically show you content designed to provoke engagement
TFA mentions what the actual issue is (it's not simply spoiling people)
This is what TFA seems to say:
> Unlike the DMCA notice, where WBD used “video” to describe the content, the declaration to the court by Michael Bentkover classifies the infringing content as “summaries of unpublished, character, setting, and plots of a forthcoming series”.
Isn't that simply about spoiling people, or what's the "crime" here? The article also says "Copyright generally protects the expression of a work, not the underlying ideas or plot descriptions", so I'm still unsure what the actual issue is, besides the misuse of DMCA.
Most likely the culprit is someone on their staff that broke their NDA contract, but the DMCA is about stopping the proliferation of copyrighted material. They are misusing the DMCA because it has higher discovery/subpoena ability.
> but the DMCA is about stopping the proliferation of copyrighted material.
If the videos posted to twitter were just summaries and not actual video of the unreleased show it seems unlikely that there was any copyrighted material being proliferated
Can an NDA be used as justification for a DMCA? Has it happened before?
Under the DMCA, you can claim copyright over damn near anything and force a provider to take it down. If there is any ambiguity as to whether you are the owner of the allegedly copyrighted material, like for example legitimate fair use, they still are required to take it down—unless the alleged violator files a DMCA counterclaim in which they must supply their legal name and address to the original claimant. This has been used to silence, or deanonymize, people who post unpleasant things about a powerful person or organization.
A takedown from the entity hosting the content is one thing, but forcing them to give up someone's ID is another.
The crime is that we're living in a society where different laws apply to corporations than to people. If a corporation doesn't like you, you're toast, no matter whether you're wrong or right.
There are enough laws that they'll find something to nail you on.
Even if they don't have a legal leg to stand on they can bankrupt you with legal fees and lawsuits dragged out until you're ruined anyway.
It really didn't.
I interpret that as they just didn't like that someone posted the summary, and they are trying to use the DMCA to do a job that wasn't intended by the law's creators.