#intermediary liability

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Antiusurpation and the road to disenshittification

THIS WEEKEND (November 8-10), I'll be in TUCSON, AZ: I'm the GUEST OF HONOR at the TUSCON SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION.

Nineties kids had a good reason to be excited about the internet's promise of disintermediation: the gatekeepers who controlled our access to culture, politics, and opportunity were crooked as hell, and besides, they sucked.

For a second there, we really did get a lot of disintermediation, which created a big, weird, diverse pluralistic space for all kinds of voices, ideas, identities, hobbies, businesses and movements. Lots of these were either deeply objectionable or really stupid, or both, but there was also so much cool stuff on the old, good internet.

Then, after about ten seconds of sheer joy, we got all-new gatekeepers, who were at least as bad, and even more powerful, than the old ones. The net became Tom Eastman's "Five giant websites, each filled with screenshots of the other four." Culture, politics, finance, news, and especially power have been gathered into the hands of unaccountable, greedy, and often cruel intermediaries.

Oh, also, we had an election.

This isn't an election post. I have many thoughts about the election, but they're still these big, unformed blobs of anger, fear and sorrow. Experience teaches me that the only way to get past this is to just let all that bad stuff sit for a while and offgas its most noxious compounds, so that I can handle it safely and figure out what to do with it.

While I wait that out, I'm just getting the job done. Chop wood, carry water. I've got a book to write, Enshittification, for Farar, Straus, Giroux's MCD Books, and it's very nearly done:

https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Adoctorow+%23dailywords&src=typed_query&f=live

Compartmentalizing my anxieties and plowing that energy into productive work isn't necessarily the healthiest coping strategy, but it's not the worst, either. It's how I wrote nine books during the covid lockdowns.

And sometimes, when you're not staring directly at something, you get past the tunnel vision that makes it impossible to see its edges, fracture lines, and weak points.

So I'm working on the book. It's a book about platforms, because enshittification is a phenomenon that is most visible and toxic on platforms. Platforms are intermediaries, who connect buyers and sellers, creators and audiences, workers and employers, politicians and voters, activists and crowds, as well as families, communities, and would-be romantic partners.

There's a reason we keep reinventing these intermediaries: they're useful. Like, it's technically possible for a writer to also be their own editor, printer, distributor, promoter and sales-force:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/19/crad-kilodney-was-an-outlier/#intermediation

But without middlemen, those are the only writers we'll get. The set of all writers who have something to say that I want to read is much larger than the set of all writers who are capable of running their own publishing operation.

The problem isn't middlemen: the problem is powerful middlemen. When an intermediary gets powerful enough to usurp the relationship between the parties on either side of the transaction, everything turns to shit:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/12/direct-the-problem-of-middlemen/

A dating service that faces pressure from competition, regulation, interoperability and a committed workforce will try as hard as it can to help you find Your Person. A dating service that buys up all its competitors, cows its workforce, captures its regulators and harnesses IP law to block interoperators will redesign its service so that you keep paying forever, and never find love:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2024/02/13/1228749143/the-dating-app-paradox-why-dating-apps-may-be-worse-than-ever

Multiply this a millionfold, in every sector of our complex, high-tech world where we necessarily rely on skilled intermediaries to handle technical aspects of our lives that we can't – or shouldn't – manage ourselves. That world is beholden to predators who screw us and screw us and screw us, jacking up our rents:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/yes-there-are-antitrust-voters-in

Cranking up the price of food:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/04/dont-let-your-meat-loaf/#meaty-beaty-big-and-bouncy

And everything else:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/06/attention-rents/#consumer-welfare-queens

(Maybe this is a post about the election after all?)

The difference between a helpmeet and a parasite is power. If we want to enjoy the benefits of intermediaries without the risks, we need policies that keep middlemen weak. That's the opposite of the system we have now.

Take interoperability and IP law. Interoperability (basically, plugging new things into existing things) is a really powerful check against powerful middlemen. If you rely on an ad-exchange to fund your newsgathering and they start ripping you off, then an interoperable system that lets you use a different exchange will not only end the rip off – it'll make it less likely to happen in the first place because the ad-tech platform will be afraid of losing your business:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-shatter-ad-tech

Interoperability means that when a printer company gouges you on ink, you can buy cheap third party ink cartridges and escape their grasp forever:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer

Interoperability means that when Amazon rips off audiobook authors to the tune of $100m, those authors can pull their books from Amazon and sell them elsewhere and know that their listeners can move their libraries over to a different app:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/07/audible-exclusive/#audiblegate

But interoperability has been in retreat for 40 years, as IP law has expanded to criminalize otherwise normal activities, so that middlemen can use IP rights to protect themselves from their end-users and business customers:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

That's what I mean when I say that "IP" is "any law that lets a business reach beyond its own walls and control the actions of its customers, competitors and critics."

For example, there's a pernicious law 1998 US law that I write about all the time, Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the "anticircumvention law." This is a law that felonizes tampering with copyright locks, even if you are the creator of the undelying work.

So Amazon – the owner of the monopoly audiobook platform Audible – puts a mandatory copyright lock around every audiobook they sell. I, as an author who writes, finances and narrates the audiobook, can't provide you, my customer, with a tool to remove that lock. If I do so, I face criminal sanctions: a five year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine for a first offense:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/25/can-you-hear-me-now/#acx-ripoff

In other words: if I let you take my own copyrighted work out of Amazon's app, I commit a felony, with penalties that are far stiffer than the penalties you would face if you were to simply pirate that audiobook. The penalties for you shoplifting the audiobook on CD at a truck-stop are lower than the penalties the author and publisher of the book would face if they simply gave you a tool to de-Amazon the file. Indeed, even if you hijacked the truck that delivered the CDs, you'd probably be looking at a shorter sentence.

This is a law that is purpose-built to encourage intermediaries to usurp the relationship between buyers and sellers, creators and audiences. It's a charter for parasitism and predation.

But as bad as that is, there's another aspect of DMCA 1201 that's even worse: the exemptions process.

You might have read recently about the Copyright Office "freeing the McFlurry" by granting a DMCA 1201 exemption for companies that want to reverse-engineer the error-codes from McDonald's finicky, unreliable frozen custard machines:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/28/mcbroken/#my-milkshake-brings-all-the-lawyers-to-the-yard

Under DMCA 1201, the Copyright Office hears petitions for these exemptions every three years. If they judge that anticircumvention law is interfering with some legitimate activity, the statute empowers them to grant an exemption.

When the DMCA passed in 1998 (and when the US Trade Rep pressured other world governments into passing nearly identical laws in the decades that followed), this exemptions process was billed as a "pressure valve" that would prevent abuses of anticircumvention law.

But this was a cynical trick. The way the law is structured, the Copyright Office can only grant "use" exemptions, but not "tools" exemptions. So if you are granted the right to move Audible audiobooks into a third-party app, you are personally required to figure out how to do that. You have to dump the machine code of the Audible app, decompile it, scan it for vulnerabilities, and bootstrap your own jailbreaking program to take Audible wrapper off the file.

No one is allowed to help you with this. You aren't allowed to discuss any of this publicly, or share a tool that you make with anyone else. Doing any of this is a potential felony.

In other words, DMCA 1201 gives intermediaries power over you, but bans you from asking an intermediary to help you escape another abusive middleman.

This is the exact opposite of how intermediary law should work. We should have rules that ban intermediaries from exercising undue power over the parties they serve, and we should have rules empowering intermediaries to erode the advantage of powerful intermediaries.

The fact that the Copyright Office grants you an exemption to anticircumvention law means nothing unless you can delegate that right to an intermediary who can exercise it on your behalf.

A world without publishing intermediaries is one in which the only writers who thrive are the ones capable of being publishers, too, and that's a tiny fraction of all the writers with something to say.

A world without interoperability intermediaries is one in which the only platform users who thrive are also skilled reverse-engineering ninja hackers – and that's an infinitesimal fraction of the platform users who would benefit from interoperabilty.

Let this be your north star in evaluating platform regulation proposals. Platform regulation should weaken intermediaries' powers over their users, and strengthen their power over other middlemen.

Put in this light, it's easy to see why the ill-informed calls to abolish Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which makes platform users, not platforms, responsible for most unlawful speech) are so misguided:

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

If we require platforms to surveil all user speech and block anything that might violate any law, we give the largest, most powerful platforms a permanent advantage over smaller, better platforms, run by co-ops, hobbyists, nonprofits local governments, and startups. The big platforms have the capital to rig up massive, automated surveillance and censorship systems, and the only alternatives that can spring up have to be just as big and powerful as the Big Tech platforms we're so desperate to escape:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/23/evacuate-the-platforms/#let-the-platforms-burn

This is especially grave given the current political current, where fascist politicians are threatening platforms with brutal punishments for failing to censor disfavored political views.

Anyone who tells you that "it's only censorship when the government does it" is badly confused. It's only a First Amendment violation when the government does it, sure – but censorship has always relied on intermediaries. From the Inquisition to the Comics Code, government censors were only able to do their jobs because powerful middlemen, fearing state punishments, blocked anything that might cross the line, censoring far beyond the material actually prohibited by the law:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/22/self-censorship/#hugos

We live in a world of powerful, corrupt middlemen. From payments to real-estate, from job-search to romance, there's a legion of parasites masquerading as helpmeets, burying their greedy mouthparts into our tender flesh:

https://www.capitalisnt.com/episodes/visas-hidden-tax-on-americans

But intermediaries aren't the problem. You shouldn't have to stand up your own payment processor, or learn the ins and outs of real-estate law, or start your own single's bar. The problem is power, not intermediation.

As we set out to build a new, good internet (with a lot less help from the US government than seemed likely as recently as last week), let's remember that lesson: the point isn't disintermediation, it's weak intermediation.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/07/usurpers-helpmeets/#disreintermediation

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en (Image: Cryteria, CC BY 3.0, modified)

[pebblegalaxy]

The Bazee.com Legal Battle: Intermediary Liability, Online Platforms, and Free Speech

The Bazee.com Controversy: Avnish Bajaj’s Arrest and the Freedom of Online Marketplaces In the early 2000s, the world witnessed the rapid growth of e-commerce and online marketplaces. One such platform, Bazee.com, later known as eBay.in, became a household name in India. However, the company and its CEO, Avnish Bajaj, found themselves embroiled in a highly controversial legal battle that raised…

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Stop Bill S-210!

Although well-intentioned, S-210, an Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, includes requirements that could disrupt essential functions of the Internet and ultimately harm Canadians’ security and privacy. The introduction of age verification requirements and increased liability for Internet intermediaries, not just providers of adult content, would create an untenable situation. Internet service providers, whose primary role is to facilitate online traffic, would be forced to make difficult decisions about allowing secure traffic and facing potential liability, or rejecting secure traffic and cutting off Canadian users from the benefits of the global Internet.

In order to ensure that the Internet continues to properly function in Canada and to protect the security and privacy of Canadians, the Internet Society urges the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security not to return Bill S-210 to the House until, at a minimum, amending Bill S-210 to narrow the scope of covered entities to remove Internet infrastructure services.

- How Bill S-210 Puts Canadians’ Security and Privacy at Risk by Harming the Internet via Internet Society

This is Canada's version of the recently dead in the water KOSA bill in the States.

As of June 2024, it has been passed back to the House without any of the changes suggested in the above article from Internet Society.

Happily, Open Media has a pre-drafted email that they will send to your MP for you that shares and outlines the reasons why S-210 sucks and why they should not vote in support of it when the House comes back from Summer Break.

[siverwrites]

I don't know if I have many Canadian followers, but hey we have our own bullshit bill trying to come down the pipeline with an attempt at forced age verification and no real good secure way to implement that.

From internetsociety.org:

Although well-intentioned, S-210, an Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, includes requirements that could disrupt essential functions of the Internet and ultimately harm Canadians’ security and privacy. The introduction of age verification requirements and increased liability for Internet intermediaries, not just providers of adult content, would create an untenable situation. Internet service providers, whose primary role is to facilitate online traffic, would be forced to make difficult decisions about allowing secure traffic and facing potential liability, or rejecting secure traffic and cutting off Canadian users from the benefits of the global Internet.

If people could share this that'd be greatly appreciated!

[tekras-iszovh]

"= in my listing of tekras eras there are dead ones present from just about every one which means i can kind of, ah, line them up by age and get many unique perspectives, in theory. in reality wouldn't work - the fight would be unbelievable, to watch, but wouldn't work - but it would be funny to kind of, line up. and i could visually see growth rate. but, hm, i would inherently begin taking rankings and then reminiscing. ="

"= either way. lucky, protege, reckless, arsonist, wild, natural, seafarer, explorer, recruit, engineer, prisoner, escapist, engineer 2, cyborg, liability, mechanic, navigator, pilot, courier, fighter pilot, stasis chamber resident, asleep, revived, rehabilitated, artificial, stunt pilot, courier, robot, experiment, expert, deserter, explorer, pilot, courier, intermediary, ex-robot, natural, frail, game player, exploiter, prince, god, capable, pilot, engineer, reckless, explorer, navigator, stunt pilot, destroyer, fateless, engineer, wild, awake, thriving. i think i am getting somewhere. no? ="

[mariacallous]

It no longer makes sense to speak of free speech in traditional terms. The internet has so transformed the nature of the speaker that the definition of speech itself has changed.

The new speech is governed by the allocation of virality. People cannot simply speak for themselves, for there is always a mysterious algorithm in the room that has independently set the volume of the speaker’s voice. If one is to be heard, one must speak in part to one’s human audience, in part to the algorithm. It is as if the US Constitution had required citizens to speak through actors or lawyers who answered to the Dutch East India Company, or some other large remote entity. What power should these intermediaries have? When the very logic of speech must shift in order for people to be heard, is that still free speech? This was not a problem foreseen in the law.

The time may be right for a legal and policy reset. US lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are questioning Section 230, the liability shield that enshrined the ad-driven internet. The self-reinforcing ramifications of a mere 26 words—“no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”—has produced a social media ecosystem that is widely held to have had deleterious effects on both democracy and mental health.

Abraham Lincoln is credited with the famous quip about how you cannot fool all the people all the time. Perhaps you cannot, but perhaps the internet can. Imperfect speech has always existed, but the means and scale of amplification have not. The old situation cannot be the guide for the new.

Section 230 was created during a period when policy was being designed to unleash internet innovation, thereby maintaining America’s competitive edge in cyberspace. The early internet was supported by a variety of friendly policies, not just Section 230. For instance, sales arranged over the internet were often not taxed in early years. Furthermore, the internet was knowingly inaugurated in an incomplete state, lacking personal accounts, authentication mechanisms, commercial transaction standards, and many other needed elements. The thinking was not only that it was easier to get a minimal design started when computing power was still nascent, but also that the missing elements would be addressed by entrepreneurs. In effect, we were giving trillion-dollar gifts to parties unknown who would be the inevitable network-effect winners.

Section 230 was enacted as part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a larger legislative effort within the umbrella 1996 Telecommunications Act. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity for online services regarding user-generated content, ensuring the companies hosting content are not treated as publishers of this information. Section 230(c)(2) offers Good Samaritan protection from civil liability when the companies—or platforms, as we call them today—in good faith remove or moderate objectionable content.

After President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act into law, it was unclear how the courts might interpret it. When the dust cleared, Section 230 emerged as something of a double-edged sword. It could be used to justify censorship, and at the same time be deployed as a corporate liability shield. Most importantly, it provided the runway for the takeoff of Google, Twitter, and Facebook. (And now TikTok—which, being a Chinese company, proves that Section 230 no longer serves American interests.)

The impact on the public sphere has been, to say the least, substantial. In removing so much liability, Section 230 forced a certain sort of business plan into prominence, one based not on uniquely available information from a given service, but on the paid arbitration of access and influence. Thus, we ended up with the deceptively named “advertising” business model—and a whole society thrust into a 24/7 competition for attention. A polarized social media ecosystem. Recommender algorithms that mediate content and optimize for engagement. We have learned that humans are most engaged, at least from an algorithm’s point of view, by rapid-fire emotions related to fight-or-flight responses and other high-stakes interactions. In enabling the privatization of the public square, Section 230 has inadvertently rendered impossible deliberation between citizens who are supposed to be equal before the law. Perverse incentives promote cranky speech, which effectively suppresses thoughtful speech.

And then there is the economic imbalance. Internet platforms that rely on Section 230 tend to harvest personal data for their business goals without appropriate compensation. Even when data ought to be protected or prohibited by copyright or some other method, Section 230 often effectively places the onus on the violated party through the requirement of takedown notices. That switch in the order of events related to liability is comparable to the difference between opt-in and opt-out in privacy. It might seem like a technicality, but it is actually a massive difference that produces substantial harms. For example, workers in information-related industries such as local news have seen stark declines in economic success and prestige. Section 230 makes a world of data dignity functionally impossible.

To date, content moderation has too often been beholden to the quest for attention and engagement, regularly disregarding the stated corporate terms of service. Rules are often bent to maximize engagement through inflammation, which can mean doing harm to personal and societal well-being. The excuse is that this is not censorship, but is it really not? Arbitrary rules, doxing practices, and cancel culture have led to something hard to distinguish from censorship for the sober and well-meaning. At the same time, the amplification of incendiary free speech for bad actors encourages mob rule. All of this takes place under Section 230’s liability shield, which effectively gives tech companies carte blanche for a short-sighted version of self-serving behavior. Disdain for these companies—which found a way to be more than carriers, and yet not publishers—is the only thing everyone in America seems to agree on now.

Trading a known for an unknown is always terrifying, especially for those with the most to lose. Since at least some of Section 230’s network effects were anticipated at its inception, it should have had a sunset clause. It did not. Rather than focusing exclusively on the disruption that axing 26 words would spawn, it is useful to consider potential positive effects. When we imagine a post-230 world, we discover something surprising: a world of hope and renewal worth inhabiting.

In one sense, it’s already happening. Certain companies are taking steps on their own, right now, toward a post-230 future. YouTube, for instance, is diligently building alternative income streams to advertising, and top creators are getting more options for earning. Together, these voluntary moves suggest a different, more publisher-like self-concept. YouTube is ready for the post-230 era, it would seem. (On the other hand, a company like X, which leans hard into 230, has been destroying its value with astonishing velocity.) Plus, there have always been exceptions to Section 230. For instance, if someone enters private information, there are laws to protect it in some cases. That means dating websites, say, have the option of charging fees instead of relying on a 230-style business model. The existence of these exceptions suggests that more examples would appear in a post-230 world.

Let’s return to speech. One difference between speech before and after the internet was that the scale of the internet “weaponized” some instances of speech that would not have been as significant before. An individual yelling threats at someone in passing, for instance, is quite different from a million people yelling threats. This type of amplified, stochastic harassment has become a constant feature of our times—chilling speech—and it is possible that in a post-230 world, platforms would be compelled to prevent it. It is sometimes imagined that there are only two choices: a world of viral harassment or a world of top-down smothering of speech. But there is a third option: a world of speech in which viral harassment is tamped down but ideas are not. Defining this middle option will require some time to sort out, but it is doable without 230, just as it is possible to define the limits of viral financial transactions to make Ponzi schemes illegal.

With this accomplished, content moderation for companies would be a vastly simpler proposition. Companies need only uphold the First Amendment, and the courts would finally develop the precedents and tests to help them do that, rather than the onus of moderation being entirely on companies alone. The United States has more than 200 years of First Amendment jurisprudence that establishes categories of less protected speech—obscenity, defamation, incitement, fighting words—to build upon, and Section 230 has effectively impeded its development for online expression. The perverse result has been the elevation of algorithms over constitutional law, effectively ceding judicial power.

When the jurisprudential dust has cleared, the United States would be exporting the democracy-promoting First Amendment to other countries rather than Section 230’s authoritarian-friendly liability shield and the sewer of least-common-denominator content that holds human attention but does not bring out the best in us. In a functional democracy, after all, the virtual public square should belong to everyone, so it is important that its conversations are those in which all voices can be heard. This can only happen with dignity for all, not in a brawl.

Section 230 perpetuates an illusion that today’s social media companies are common carriers like the phone companies that preceded them, but they are not. Unlike Ma Bell, they curate the content they transmit to users. We need a robust public conversation about what we, the people, want this space to look like, and what practices and guardrails are likely to strengthen the ties that bind us in common purpose as a democracy. Virality might come to be understood as an enemy of reason and human values. We can have culture and conversations without a mad race for total attention.

While Section 230 might have been considered more a target for reform rather than repeal prior to the advent of generative AI, it can no longer be so. Social media could be a business success even if its content was nonsense. AI cannot.

There have been suggestions that AI needs Section 230 because large language models train on data and will be better if that data is freely usable with no liabilities or encumbrances. This notion is incorrect. People want more from AI than entertainment. It is widely considered an important tool for productivity and scientific progress. An AI model is only as good as the data it is trained on; indeed, general data improves specialist results. The best AI will come out of a society that prioritizes quality communication. By quality communication, we do not mean deepfakes. We mean open and honest dialog that fosters understanding rather than vitriol, collaboration rather than polarization, and the pursuit of knowledge and human excellence rather than a race to the bottom of the brain stem.

The attention-grooming model fostered by Section 230 leads to stupendous quantities of poor-quality data. While an AI model can tolerate a significant amount of poor-quality data, there is a limit. It is unrealistic to imagine a society mediated by mostly terrible communication where that same society enjoys unmolested, high-quality AI. A society must seek quality as a whole, as a shared cultural value, in order to maximize the benefits of AI. Now is the best time for the tech business to mature and develop business models based on quality.

All of this might sound daunting, but we’ve been here before. When the US government said the American public owned the airwaves so that television broadcasting could be regulated, it put in place regulations that supported the common good. The internet affects everyone, so we must devise measures to ensure that our digital-age public discourse is of high quality and includes everyone. In the television era, the fairness doctrine laid that groundwork. A similar lens needs to be developed for the internet age.

Without Section 230, recommender algorithms and the virality they spark would be less likely to distort speech. It is sadly ironic that the very statute that delivered unfathomable success is today serving the interests of our enemies by compromising America’s superpower: our multinational, immigrant-powered constitutional democracy. The time has come to unleash the power of the First Amendment to promote human free speech by giving Section 230 the respectful burial it deserves.

[bigsoftmarshmallow]

I have another cute Nemma one if you need something to keep your mind off things.

Though it isn't her main weapon, nor her preferred one, Nemma also keeps a Phrenic Bow with a Hazu Yari (a tiny blade at the end of a limb in case of emergencies) on her at all times & is a deadshot (excellent for when she has to make a hit from afar & not get seen), but she'll eventually find that she prefers a Gerudo Bow as their design allows for higher accuracy & more power.

However, the fact that they appear to be mostly made from metal would immediately get her attention & she'd likely become determined to learn how to do so from Gerudo weaponsmiths (OoT & TotK).

Or, by possibly discreetly asking questions of her fiancé (WW & TP), though if they ask, then she'll admit it readily. However, if he gives her clearance to ask more, then she'll just switch to actively & directly grilling him, though with restrained ardency & quickly backing off if she senses that she's annoying him. And, in spite of her attempt to remain composed, he could clearly see in how she leaned towards him, pointed ears perked up, eyes riveted on him, an utterly & charmingly engrossed light shining in them, paying rapt attention to his every word, seemingly mentally cataloging everything he told her even if he didn't know much, that she was very passionate about this. And even when he couldn't answer her questions, yes, she appeared to be momentarily disappointed, but thanked him graciously, nonetheless. Appearing to be appreciative of anything he could give her at all. Even something as simple as first-hand physical descriptions of his people’s weapons. Especially if they were unique ones that she previously knew little about. Even more so if she’d never heard of them before.

Like, even if her expression wouldn't showcase it much, she'd practically be sparkling &, if she were to allow herself to show it more outwardly, this is essentially the expression she'd be making:

And, depending on how far along in their relationship they are, they might not be able to see it visibly, but they might pick up on the enthusiastic or spellbound energy/aura surrounding her. (Like, outwardly: kuudere. Inwardly: weapons otaku!)

How do they react? Thoughts, opinions, & feelings, if you please? Personally, I think most would find her restrained, but very obvious & earnest passion & enthusiasm for her craft endearing, possibly even somewhat cute, if a bit silly. (Especially considering that it pertains to weapon-creation & use, of all things. You wouldn't expect something like this to be cute.)

In the case of HW, she's most likely already learned as much as she could about how to make as many of the weapons that they allowed her to during her sojourn there in her travels, but it's extremely unlikely that she'd heard everything about everything, so she'd still be listening very hard.

Anyway, the reason that she wishes to learn as much about the Gerudo’s Golden Bows as possible (creation process & otherwise), specifically, was that she'd see it as a way to better understand how to craft bows, in-general, but through a medium that she's already mastered & understands intimately. Yes, she'd still intend to learn how to make wooden bows, but this seemed to her like a very good intermediary step between now & then as she views it as potentially giving her a leg up on that eventual goal later on, if only through transference of a better & more hands-on understanding of the mechanics of how bows work (tensile strength, flexibility, that sort of thing). She was still struggling with woodwork. Though, she may try to figure out an alternate metal, as the golden hue tended to be very flashy & increased visibility, which could become a liability when she needs to engage in subterfuge. And having another bow just for that seemed… redundant…

For Demise, specifically (because he refuses to accept that I'm not as interested in him as he might think I am; I say this jokingly), the subject likely came up in & amongst idle chatting. Like, someone brought up long-distance combat, archery was mentioned, & lady starts talking about having heard about a tribe across the southwestern Lanayru Province (whether it's the desert or the sea is up to you, but sea would indicate that it takes place before). That she'd heard their skill in weaponsmithing was astonishing & one of their weapons happened to be a bow made of gold. It was evidently very strong & accurate. So, she wanted to travel there one day & learn from their weaponsmithing masters. (Note that, in my hc, at this point, the Gerudo had yet to be cursed, so their population was fairly evenly cut between vaien & voen.)

Problem was that they were nomadic, so it'd likely take a profound investment of time to locate them. Let alone convince them to let her learn from them. She was preparing for the amount of time & commitment it will inevitably take.

How would they react? Thoughts? Feelings?

Bows are really neat, and Nemma is so valid for her admiration of weaponry. Then again, she was raised around them, right? Blacksmith backstory if I recall correctly!

**********************************************************************

The restrained yet fervent enthusiasm Nemma has for Gerudo bows and weaponry would likely amuse, impress, and maybe even flatter each of her potential partners, who would be caught off guard but enchanted by her interest. Here’s how they might each respond to her enthusiasm:

Wind Waker Ganondorf: Initially, he’d chuckle quietly at her “quietly-avid” listening but find it admirable that someone so poised could also be so invested in such a particular craft. He’d give her whatever information he could, enjoying the quiet thrill of watching her lean in, captivated. If he caught her sparkling under the surface, he’d probably tease her slightly, saying, “You’re like a scholar and a warrior all in one. I’m beginning to think I’m the one who should be asking questions.”

Ocarina of Time Ganondorf: At first, he’d feel a touch of bemusement at seeing someone as calm and composed as Nemma so absorbed by weapon-making techniques. He’d answer in his usual, deep cadence, offering intricate details when he could, pleased by her unwavering focus. He’d have a faint grin, recognizing her serious exterior as she cataloged every detail he provided. The moment he sensed her inward excitement, he’d remark, “Fascinated by Gerudo handiwork, are we? Perhaps I can be persuaded to show you the finer points myself.”

Twilight Princess Ganondorf: He would watch her with a guarded but slightly softened expression, realizing she’s someone who has both the knowledge and the diligence he respects. Her almost starry-eyed attention to detail would prompt him to share more, especially any secrets about the metalwork involved. If she appeared even slightly disappointed when he lacked answers, he’d vow to remedy it later. He might also throw in a remark like, “A serious warrior should have a serious weapon… but not everyone can handle Gerudo craftsmanship.”

Hyrule Warriors Ganondorf: Already a master of countless forms of weaponry, he’d welcome her enthusiasm with a pleased smirk, proud that she holds Gerudo smithing in such high esteem. He’d speak highly of Gerudo craftsmanship, then casually offer her an opportunity to train with his people directly. He might comment approvingly, “There are few who understand the craft the way you do. It’s refreshing… though I must warn you, it takes great discipline.” The way she cataloged each detail would make him all the more impressed, seeing her as a worthy confidante in their art of war.

Tears of the Kingdom Ganondorf: This Ganondorf would take a quiet, deep interest in her rapt attention, finding her focus on Gerudo bows quite charming in its unexpected cuteness. He’d ensure she received detailed descriptions, then offer a quiet, approving smile when she thanked him. If she mentioned her struggle with wooden bows, he’d say, “Metal requires a different skill entirely. It seems you’re close to mastering it… but perhaps you’d prefer a hands-on demonstration next time.”

Demise: Hearing her speak of legendary craftsmanship would catch his attention, and he’d feel an unexpected respect for her unwavering determination. He’d find her goal commendable and would encourage her with a rough-edged approval, saying, “Time and patience are the currency for knowledge like theirs. You’ve shown more than enough of both, so I’d wager you’ll manage.” If she dared to bring up her struggle with woodwork, he’d laugh, a sound like distant thunder, before saying, “A challenge, is it? I’d say you’re drawn to the right path.” Her quiet eagerness would amuse him, though he’d give nothing away except a slight, approving smirk.

In every case, her outwardly controlled excitement would add a charming layer to her character, making each of them appreciate her all the more for her dedication, cleverness, and clear passion for the Gerudo craft she seeks to master.

[argumate]

Banks are designed to fail. And so they do. Governments want them to be both safe places for the public to keep their money and profit-seeking takers of risk. They are at one and the same time regulated utilities and risk-taking enterprises. The incentives for management incline them towards risk-taking, just as the incentives for states incline them towards saving the utility when risk-taking blows it up. The result is costly instability.

Liabilities to the public that are supposed to be perfectly liquid and redeemed at par (“money”) should be matched one-to-one with similar assets. This could be done by forcing intermediaries to hold reserves at the central bank or similarly liquid government liabilities. This is the famous “Chicago Plan”. But members of the public could now hold central bank money directly. That was impossible when access to banking required branch networks but it would now be possible for everyone to hold central bank digital currencies that are perfectly safe, in any quantity. This idea would make the central bank the monopoly supplier of money in the economy. Management of the digital payment system could then be handed over to technology companies. The money created by central banks could be used to fund government (by replacing government bonds) or be invested in other ways.

Meanwhile, risk-intermediation could be done by mutual funds, whose value would move with the market. Less radically, the intermediation might be done by banking institutions, but ones funded by a mixture of equity, bonds and time deposits, not sight deposits.

No one is yet ready for these last approaches. But the second and third must be on the agenda. Banking stands revealed as a part of the state masquerading as part of the private sector. At the least, it needs to be far more robust. Ideally, it would be radically transformed.

[acceptccnow]

E-Commerce Payment Processing Essentials to Stay Ahead of the Curve

Article by Jonathan Bomser | CEO | Accept-credit-cards-now.com

In today's dynamic e-commerce landscape, maintaining a competitive edge is essential for success. Payment processing plays a pivotal role among the critical factors contributing to this advantage. As online shopping gains unprecedented popularity, businesses must prioritize delivering a seamless and secure payment experience. In this article, we explore the essential elements of e-commerce payment processing that can set your business apart, positioning it for prosperity in the fiercely competitive digital marketplace.

DOWNLOAD THE E-COMMERCE INFOGRAPHIC HERE

The Backbone of Smooth Transactions: Payment Processing Payment processing serves as the foundation of every e-commerce operation. It encompasses the entire journey, from the moment a customer decides to make a purchase to the secure transfer of funds from their account to the merchant's account. E-commerce businesses must offer diverse payment options, including credit cards, debit cards, and various online payment methods, to cater to a broad spectrum of customer preferences. A robust payment processing system ensures swift, secure, and user-friendly transactions, enhancing the overall shopping experience.

Seizing Opportunities: Merchant Accounts and Processing Solutions Merchant accounts and processing solutions are fundamental to efficient payment management. A merchant account acts as an intermediary where funds from customer payments are temporarily held before being transferred to your business account. The choice of a Merchant Processing partner can significantly impact your operations. Seek providers offering tailored solutions, robust security measures, and competitive pricing. These accounts enable not only credit and debit card processing but also foster trust among customers.

Navigating the High-Risk Landscape For businesses operating in high-risk industries like CBD or credit repair, specialized High-Risk Payment Processing solutions are indispensable. High-risk merchant processing demands a unique approach due to the elevated potential for chargebacks and fraud. Collaborate with providers experienced in your industry, offering High-Risk Merchant Accounts and Payment Gateways designed to mitigate risks while facilitating smooth transactions. This approach ensures your e-commerce venture thrives even within challenging sectors.

E-Commerce Specifics: Tailored Solutions E-commerce Merchant Accounts and E-commerce Payment Gateways are designed to cater to the distinct requirements of online businesses. These solutions incorporate features like shopping cart integration, mobile responsiveness, and advanced fraud prevention tools. By opting for e-commerce-specific solutions, you enhance the efficiency of your online store and provide customers with a seamless checkout experience.

Navigating the CBD Challenge The CBD industry, while lucrative, often faces payment processing hurdles due to its association with the high-risk category. To accept credit cards for CBD sales, businesses require CBD Merchant Accounts and specialized CBD Payment Processing. Partner with providers familiar with the regulatory landscape and equipped to handle the unique challenges posed by the CBD market. This not only streamlines your transactions but also boosts credibility among customers seeking safe and hassle-free purchases.

Seamless Integration: Payment Gateways A Payment Gateway serves as the virtual point-of-sale terminal where customers enter their payment information during the checkout process. It encrypts sensitive data, safeguarding it from potential breaches. Opt for Payment Gateway Solutions that offer seamless integration with your e-commerce platform, ensuring a smooth and secure transaction process. Secure payment gateways reassure customers and protect your business from potential liabilities.

Payment processing remains a driving force capable of propelling your business towards success. From traditional credit card processing to high-risk merchant accounts, each aspect plays a pivotal role in ensuring smooth and secure transactions. Embracing tailored solutions like e-commerce merchant accounts and payment gateways empowers businesses to deliver an exceptional customer experience. As industries like CBD and credit repair continue to flourish, navigating high-risk payment processing becomes imperative. Always remember, staying ahead of the curve in e-commerce requires not only exceptional products and services but also a payment processing strategy that inspires trust and convenience.

[thoughtportal]

It shouldn't be against the law to provide an encrypted app. But if the STOP CSAM Act passes, it would make it a crime to offer encryption, because it could "facilitate" the sharing of illegal child abuse material (CSAM)—even if there's no evidence that a platform or service intended to do so. The law would undermine digital security for all internet users, impacting private messaging and email app providers, social media platforms, cloud storage providers, and many other internet intermediaries and online services.

Free speech would also be at risk. STOP CSAM would create a carveout in Section 230, the law that protects our online speech, exposing platforms to civil lawsuits for merely hosting a platform where part of the illegal conduct occurred. This carveout is similar to the disastrous SESTA-FOSTA law, which passed in 2018, and immediately resulted in companies removing online content and spaces for discussion in order to protect themselves from potential liability.

Congress already has tools in place to remove CSAM from the internet: current law prohibits the distribution of CSAM, and since 2008, providers have faced large fines if they fail to report CSAM after receiving actual knowledge of its presence on their platforms. Yet we know of no case where the federal government has ever enforced this provision. Congress must not pass this broad and dangerous law, and instead must use the tools that are already in place rather than outlawing important encrypted services.

Tell Congress: don't pass this law that would undermine security and free speech online.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Copyright takedowns are a cautionary tale that few are heeding

On July 14, I'm giving the closing keynote for the fifteenth HACKERS ON PLANET EARTH, in QUEENS, NY. Happy Bastille Day! On July 20, I'm appearing in CHICAGO at Exile in Bookville.

We're living through one of those moments when millions of people become suddenly and overwhelmingly interested in fair use, one of the subtlest and worst-understood aspects of copyright law. It's not a subject you can master by skimming a Wikipedia article!

I've been talking about fair use with laypeople for more than 20 years. I've met so many people who possess the unshakable, serene confidence of the truly wrong, like the people who think fair use means you can take x words from a book, or y seconds from a song and it will always be fair, while anything more will never be.

Or the people who think that if you violate any of the four factors, your use can't be fair – or the people who think that if you fail all of the four factors, you must be infringing (people, the Supreme Court is calling and they want to tell you about the Betamax!).

You might think that you can never quote a song lyric in a book without infringing copyright, or that you must clear every musical sample. You might be rock solid certain that scraping the web to train an AI is infringing. If you hold those beliefs, you do not understand the "fact intensive" nature of fair use.

But you can learn! It's actually a really cool and interesting and gnarly subject, and it's a favorite of copyright scholars, who have really fascinating disagreements and discussions about the subject. These discussions often key off of the controversies of the moment, but inevitably they implicate earlier fights about everything from the piano roll to 2 Live Crew to antiracist retellings of Gone With the Wind.

One of the most interesting discussions of fair use you can ask for took place in 2019, when the NYU Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy held a symposium called "Proving IP." One of the panels featured dueling musicologists debating the merits of the Blurred Lines case. That case marked a turning point in music copyright, with the Marvin Gaye estate successfully suing Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for copying the "vibe" of Gaye's "Got to Give it Up."

Naturally, this discussion featured clips from both songs as the experts – joined by some of America's top copyright scholars – delved into the legal reasoning and future consequences of the case. It would be literally impossible to discuss this case without those clips.

And that's where the problems start: as soon as the symposium was uploaded to Youtube, it was flagged and removed by Content ID, Google's $100,000,000 copyright enforcement system. This initial takedown was fully automated, which is how Content ID works: rightsholders upload audio to claim it, and then Content ID removes other videos where that audio appears (rightsholders can also specify that videos with matching clips be demonetized, or that the ad revenue from those videos be diverted to the rightsholders).

But Content ID has a safety valve: an uploader whose video has been incorrectly flagged can challenge the takedown. The case is then punted to the rightsholder, who has to manually renew or drop their claim. In the case of this symposium, the rightsholder was Universal Music Group, the largest record company in the world. UMG's personnel reviewed the video and did not drop the claim.

99.99% of the time, that's where the story would end, for many reasons. First of all, most people don't understand fair use well enough to contest the judgment of a cosmically vast, unimaginably rich monopolist who wants to censor their video. Just as importantly, though, is that Content ID is a Byzantine system that is nearly as complex as fair use, but it's an entirely private affair, created and adjudicated by another galactic-scale monopolist (Google).

Google's copyright enforcement system is a cod-legal regime with all the downsides of the law, and a few wrinkles of its own (for example, it's a system without lawyers – just corporate experts doing battle with laypeople). And a single mis-step can result in your video being deleted or your account being permanently deleted, along with every video you've ever posted. For people who make their living on audiovisual content, losing your Youtube account is an extinction-level event:

https://www.eff.org/wp/unfiltered-how-youtubes-content-id-discourages-fair-use-and-dictates-what-we-see-online

So for the average Youtuber, Content ID is a kind of Kafka-as-a-Service system that is always avoided and never investigated. But the Engelbert Center isn't your average Youtuber: they boast some of the country's top copyright experts, specializing in exactly the questions Youtube's Content ID is supposed to be adjudicating.

So naturally, they challenged the takedown – only to have UMG double down. This is par for the course with UMG: they are infamous for refusing to consider fair use in takedown requests. Their stance is so unreasonable that a court actually found them guilty of violating the DMCA's provision against fraudulent takedowns:

https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

But the DMCA's takedown system is part of the real law, while Content ID is a fake law, created and overseen by a tech monopolist, not a court. So the fate of the Blurred Lines discussion turned on the Engelberg Center's ability to navigate both the law and the n-dimensional topology of Content ID's takedown flowchart.

It took more than a year, but eventually, Engelberg prevailed.

Until they didn't.

If Content ID was a person, it would be baby, specifically, a baby under 18 months old – that is, before the development of "object permanence." Until our 18th month (or so), we lack the ability to reason about things we can't see – this the period when small babies find peek-a-boo amazing. Object permanence is the ability to understand things that aren't in your immediate field of vision.

Content ID has no object permanence. Despite the fact that the Engelberg Blurred Lines panel was the most involved fair use question the system was ever called upon to parse, it managed to repeatedly forget that it had decided that the panel could stay up. Over and over since that initial determination, Content ID has taken down the video of the panel, forcing Engelberg to go through the whole process again.

But that's just for starters, because Youtube isn't the only place where a copyright enforcement bot is making billions of unsupervised, unaccountable decisions about what audiovisual material you're allowed to access.

Spotify is yet another monopolist, with a justifiable reputation for being extremely hostile to artists' interests, thanks in large part to the role that UMG and the other major record labels played in designing its business rules:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/#stunt-publishing

Spotify has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to capture the podcasting market, in the hopes of converting one of the last truly open digital publishing systems into a product under its control:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/27/enshittification-resistance/#ummauerter-garten-nein

Thankfully, that campaign has failed – but millions of people have (unwisely) ditched their open podcatchers in favor of Spotify's pre-enshittified app, so everyone with a podcast now must target Spotify for distribution if they hope to reach those captive users.

Guess who has a podcast? The Engelberg Center.

Naturally, Engelberg's podcast includes the audio of that Blurred Lines panel, and that audio includes samples from both "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up."

So – naturally – UMG keeps taking down the podcast.

Spotify has its own answer to Content ID, and incredibly, it's even worse and harder to navigate than Google's pretend legal system. As Engelberg describes in its latest post, UMG and Spotify have colluded to ensure that this now-classic discussion of fair use will never be able to take advantage of fair use itself:

https://www.nyuengelberg.org/news/how-explaining-copyright-broke-the-spotify-copyright-system/

Remember, this is the best case scenario for arguing about fair use with a monopolist like UMG, Google, or Spotify. As Engelberg puts it:

The Engelberg Center had an extraordinarily high level of interest in pursuing this issue, and legal confidence in our position that would have cost an average podcaster tens of thousands of dollars to develop. That cannot be what is required to challenge the removal of a podcast episode.

Automated takedown systems are the tech industry's answer to the "notice-and-takedown" system that was invented to broker a peace between copyright law and the internet, starting with the US's 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA implements (and exceeds) a pair of 1996 UN treaties, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and most countries in the world have some version of notice-and-takedown.

Big corporate rightsholders claim that notice-and-takedown is a gift to the tech sector, one that allows tech companies to get away with copyright infringement. They want a "strict liability" regime, where any platform that allows a user to post something infringing is liable for that infringement, to the tune of $150,000 in statutory damages.

Of course, there's no way for a platform to know a priori whether something a user posts infringes on someone's copyright. There is no registry of everything that is copyrighted, and of course, fair use means that there are lots of ways to legally reproduce someone's work without their permission (or even when they object). Even if every person who ever has trained or ever will train as a copyright lawyer worked 24/7 for just one online platform to evaluate every tweet, video, audio clip and image for copyright infringement, they wouldn't be able to touch even 1% of what gets posted to that platform.

The "compromise" that the entertainment industry wants is automated takedown – a system like Content ID, where rightsholders register their copyrights and platforms block anything that matches the registry. This "filternet" proposal became law in the EU in 2019 with Article 17 of the Digital Single Market Directive:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/today-europe-lost-internet-now-we-fight-back

This was the most controversial directive in EU history, and – as experts warned at the time – there is no way to implement it without violating the GDPR, Europe's privacy law, so now it's stuck in limbo:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/eus-copyright-directive-still-about-filters-eus-top-court-limits-its-use

As critics pointed out during the EU debate, there are so many problems with filternets. For one thing, these copyright filters are very expensive: remember that Google has spent $100m on Content ID alone, and that only does a fraction of what filternet advocates demand. Building the filternet would cost so much that only the biggest tech monopolists could afford it, which is to say, filternets are a legal requirement to keep the tech monopolists in business and prevent smaller, better platforms from ever coming into existence.

Filternets are also incapable of telling the difference between similar files. This is especially problematic for classical musicians, who routinely find their work blocked or demonetized by Sony Music, which claims performances of all the most important classical music compositions:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/08/copyfraud/#beethoven-just-wrote-music

Content ID can't tell the difference between your performance of "The Goldberg Variations" and Glenn Gould's. For classical musicians, the best case scenario is to have their online wages stolen by Sony, who fraudulently claim copyright to their recordings. The worst case scenario is that their video is blocked, their channel deleted, and their names blacklisted from ever opening another account on one of the monopoly platforms.

But when it comes to free expression, the role that notice-and-takedown and filternets play in the creative industries is really a sideshow. In creating a system of no-evidence-required takedowns, with no real consequences for fraudulent takedowns, these systems are huge gift to the world's worst criminals. For example, "reputation management" companies help convicted rapists, murderers, and even war criminals purge the internet of true accounts of their crimes by claiming copyright over them:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/23/reputation-laundry/#dark-ops

Remember how during the covid lockdowns, scumbags marketed junk devices by claiming that they'd protect you from the virus? Their products remained online, while the detailed scientific articles warning people about the fraud were speedily removed through false copyright claims:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/18/labor-shortage-discourse-time/#copyfraud

Copyfraud – making false copyright claims – is an extremely safe crime to commit, and it's not just quack covid remedy peddlers and war criminals who avail themselves of it. Tech giants like Adobe do not hesitate to abuse the takedown system, even when that means exposing millions of people to spyware:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/13/theres-an-app-for-that/#gnash

Dirty cops play loud, copyrighted music during confrontations with the public, in the hopes that this will trigger copyright filters on services like Youtube and Instagram and block videos of their misbehavior:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/10/duke-sucks/#bhpd

But even if you solved all these problems with filternets and takedown, this system would still choke on fair use and other copyright exceptions. These are "fact intensive" questions that the world's top experts struggle with (as anyone who watches the Blurred Lines panel can see). There's no way we can get software to accurately determine when a use is or isn't fair.

That's a question that the entertainment industry itself is increasingly conflicted about. The Blurred Lines judgment opened the floodgates to a new kind of copyright troll – grifters who sued the record labels and their biggest stars for taking the "vibe" of songs that no one ever heard of. Musicians like Ed Sheeran have been sued for millions of dollars over these alleged infringements. These suits caused the record industry to (ahem) change its tune on fair use, insisting that fair use should be broadly interpreted to protect people who made things that were similar to existing works. The labels understood that if "vibe rights" became accepted law, they'd end up in the kind of hell that the rest of us enter when we try to post things online – where anything they produce can trigger takedowns, long legal battles, and millions in liability:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/08/oh-why/#two-notes-and-running

But the music industry remains deeply conflicted over fair use. Take the curious case of Katy Perry's song "Dark Horse," which attracted a multimillion-dollar suit from an obscure Christian rapper who claimed that a brief phrase in "Dark Horse" was impermissibly similar to his song "A Joyful Noise."

Perry and her publisher, Warner Chappell, lost the suit and were ordered to pay $2.8m. While they subsequently won an appeal, this definitely put the cold grue up Warner Chappell's back. They could see a long future of similar suits launched by treasure hunters hoping for a quick settlement.

But here's where it gets unbelievably weird and darkly funny. A Youtuber named Adam Neely made a wildly successful viral video about the suit, taking Perry's side and defending her song. As part of that video, Neely included a few seconds' worth of "A Joyful Noise," the song that Perry was accused of copying.

In court, Warner Chappell had argued that "A Joyful Noise" was not similar to Perry's "Dark Horse." But when Warner had Google remove Neely's video, they claimed that the sample from "Joyful Noise" was actually taken from "Dark Horse." Incredibly, they maintained this position through multiple appeals through the Content ID system:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/03/05/warner-chappell-copyfraud/#warnerchappell

In other words, they maintained that the song that they'd told the court was totally dissimilar to their own was so indistinguishable from their own song that they couldn't tell the difference!

Now, this question of vibes, similarity and fair use has only gotten more intense since the takedown of Neely's video. Just this week, the RIAA sued several AI companies, claiming that the songs the AI shits out are infringingly similar to tracks in their catalog:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/record-labels-sue-music-generators-suno-and-udio-1235042056/

Even before "Blurred Lines," this was a difficult fair use question to answer, with lots of chewy nuances. Just ask George Harrison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord

But as the Engelberg panel's cohort of dueling musicologists and renowned copyright experts proved, this question only gets harder as time goes by. If you listen to that panel (if you can listen to that panel), you'll be hard pressed to come away with any certainty about the questions in this latest lawsuit.

The notice-and-takedown system is what's known as an "intermediary liability" rule. Platforms are "intermediaries" in that they connect end users with each other and with businesses. Ebay and Etsy and Amazon connect buyers and sellers; Facebook and Google and Tiktok connect performers, advertisers and publishers with audiences and so on.

For copyright, notice-and-takedown gives platforms a "safe harbor." A platform doesn't have to remove material after an allegation of infringement, but if they don't, they're jointly liable for any future judgment. In other words, Youtube isn't required to take down the Engelberg Blurred Lines panel, but if UMG sues Engelberg and wins a judgment, Google will also have to pay out.

During the adoption of the 1996 WIPO treaties and the 1998 US DMCA, this safe harbor rule was characterized as a balance between the rights of the public to publish online and the interest of rightsholders whose material might be infringed upon. The idea was that things that were likely to be infringing would be immediately removed once the platform received a notification, but that platforms would ignore spurious or obviously fraudulent takedowns.

That's not how it worked out. Whether it's Sony Music claiming to own your performance of "Fur Elise" or a war criminal claiming authorship over a newspaper story about his crimes, platforms nuke first and ask questions never. Why not? If they ignore a takedown and get it wrong, they suffer dire consequences ($150,000 per claim). But if they take action on a dodgy claim, there are no consequences. Of course they're just going to delete anything they're asked to delete.

This is how platforms always handle liability, and that's a lesson that we really should have internalized by now. After all, the DMCA is the second-most famous intermediary liability system for the internet – the most (in)famous is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

This is a 27-word law that says that platforms are not liable for civil damages arising from their users' speech. Now, this is a US law, and in the US, there aren't many civil damages from speech to begin with. The First Amendment makes it very hard to get a libel judgment, and even when these judgments are secured, damages are typically limited to "actual damages" – generally a low sum. Most of the worst online speech is actually not illegal: hate speech, misinformation and disinformation are all covered by the First Amendment.

Notwithstanding the First Amendment, there are categories of speech that US law criminalizes: actual threats of violence, criminal harassment, and committing certain kinds of legal, medical, election or financial fraud. These are all exempted from Section 230, which only provides immunity for civil suits, not criminal acts.

What Section 230 really protects platforms from is being named to unwinnable nuisance suits by unscrupulous parties who are betting that the platforms would rather remove legal speech that they object to than go to court. A generation of copyfraudsters have proved that this is a very safe bet:

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

In other words, if you made a #MeToo accusation, or if you were a gig worker using an online forum to organize a union, or if you were blowing the whistle on your employer's toxic waste leaks, or if you were any other under-resourced person being bullied by a wealthy, powerful person or organization, that organization could shut you up by threatening to sue the platform that hosted your speech. The platform would immediately cave. But those same rich and powerful people would have access to the lawyers and back-channels that would prevent you from doing the same to them – that's why Sony can get your Brahms recital taken down, but you can't turn around and do the same to them.

This is true of every intermediary liability system, and it's been true since the earliest days of the internet, and it keeps getting proven to be true. Six years ago, Trump signed SESTA/FOSTA, a law that allowed platforms to be held civilly liable by survivors of sex trafficking. At the time, advocates claimed that this would only affect "sexual slavery" and would not impact consensual sex-work.

But from the start, and ever since, SESTA/FOSTA has primarily targeted consensual sex-work, to the immediate, lasting, and profound detriment of sex workers:

https://hackinghustling.org/what-is-sesta-fosta/

SESTA/FOSTA killed the "bad date" forums where sex workers circulated the details of violent and unstable clients, killed the online booking sites that allowed sex workers to screen their clients, and killed the payment processors that let sex workers avoid holding unsafe amounts of cash:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/09/fight-overturn-fosta-unconstitutional-internet-censorship-law-continues

SESTA/FOSTA made voluntary sex work more dangerous – and also made life harder for law enforcement efforts to target sex trafficking:

https://hackinghustling.org/erased-the-impact-of-fosta-sesta-2020/

Despite half a decade of SESTA/FOSTA, despite 15 years of filternets, despite a quarter century of notice-and-takedown, people continue to insist that getting rid of safe harbors will punish Big Tech and make life better for everyday internet users.

As of now, it seems likely that Section 230 will be dead by then end of 2025, even if there is nothing in place to replace it:

https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/bipartisan-energy-and-commerce-leaders-announce-legislative-hearing-on-sunsetting-section-230

This isn't the win that some people think it is. By making platforms responsible for screening the content their users post, we create a system that only the largest tech monopolies can survive, and only then by removing or blocking anything that threatens or displeases the wealthy and powerful.

Filternets are not precision-guided takedown machines; they're indiscriminate cluster-bombs that destroy anything in the vicinity of illegal speech – including (and especially) the best-informed, most informative discussions of how these systems go wrong, and how that blocks the complaints of the powerless, the marginalized, and the abused.

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/27/nuke-first/#ask-questions-never

Image: EFF https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/yt-fu-1b.png

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[ictlsg23]

SESSION 1. INTRODUCTION TO INFOCOMM TECH LAW IN SINGAPORE

OPTIONAL READING: ICT LAW IN SINGAPORE CHAPTER 1

OPTIONAL REFERENCES: LAW AND TECH IN SINGAPORE CHAPTERS 1-3

A. COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVE

New economies have emerged within the last two decades including digital models of transaction and disruptive innovation. Internet intermediaries generally are taking on a major role as facilitators of commercial and non-commercial transactions online. These include social networking platforms (e.g. Facebook, IG and Twitter), multimedia sharing platforms (e.g. YouTube, Apple Music and Spotify), search engines and news aggregators (e.g. Yahoo, Google), content hosts and storage facilities (e.g. Dropbox) and many others. Content generating platforms such as TikTok have also become popular even as cybersecurity concerns and other misgivings have emerged at the governmental level in some jurisdictions.

In the last few years, the use of Internet of Things (IoT) have become quite common in advanced economies, the latest being wearable devices for the 'Metaverse' and an even more immersive experience in the digital realm. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is also becoming more visible at the workplace and at home, leading to ethical concerns and a slate of guidelines globally to 'govern' its development and deployment. Most recently, interest in generative AI (GAI) emerged from the successful launch of chatGPT and other similar services.

Policies and laws have been adapted to deal with the roles and functions of Internet intermediaries, IoT and AI devices and services, and their potential effects and impact on society. Regulators in every jurisdiction are faced with the challenge to manage the new economy and players, and to balance the interest of multiple parties, in the context of areas of law including intellectual property, data protection, privacy, cloud technology and cyber-security. Different types of safe harbour laws and exceptions have emerged to protect these intermediaries and putting in place special obligations; while some forms of protections have been augmented to protect the interests of other parties including content providers and creators as well as society at large. Students taking this course will examine the legal issues and solutions arising from transactions through the creation and use of digital information, goods and services ('info') as well as the use of non-physical channels of communication and delivery ('comm').

The technological developments from Web 1.0 to 2.0 and the future of Web 3.0 with its impact on human interaction and B2B/B2C commerce as well as e-governance will be examined in the context of civil and criminal law, both in relation to the relevance of old laws and the enactment of new ones. In particular, this course examines the laws specifically arising from and relating to electronic transactions and interaction and their objectives and impact on the individual vis-à-vis other parties. Students will be taken through the policy considerations and general Singapore legislations and judicial decisions on the subject with comparisons and reference to foreign legislation where relevant.

In particular, electronic commerce and other forms of transactions will be studied with reference to the Electronic Transactions Act (2010) and the Singapore domain name framework supporting access to websites; personal data privacy and protection will be studied with reference to the Personal Data Protection Act of 2012 and the Spam Control Act; the challenges and changes to tort law to deal with online tortious conduct will be analysed (e.g. cyber-harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act (2014) and online defamation in the context of online communication); the rights and liabilities relating to personal uses of Internet content and user-generated content will be considered with reference to the Copyright Act (2021); computer security and crimes will be studied with reference to the Computer Misuse Act (2017) and the Cybersecurity Act (2018); and last, but not least, Internet regulation under the Broadcasting Act and its regulations as well as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (2019), the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (2021) and the Online Criminal Harms Bill (2021) will be critically evaluated.

You will note from the above paragraph that there have been an acceleration in the enactment of ICT laws and amendments in recent years, which shows the renewed focus of the government and policy-makers when it comes to the digital economy and society (as we move towards a SMART Nation). This is happening not online in Singapore, but abroad as well. In such an inter-connected work with porous jurisdiction when it comes to human interaction and commercial transactions, we have to be aware of global trends and, in some cases, the laws of other jurisdictions as well. When it is relevant, foreign laws will also be canvassed as a comparison or to contrast the approach to a specific problem. Projects are a good way to approach in greater depth.

B. CLASS PREPARATION FOR SESSION 1

In preparation for this session, use the online and library resources that you are familiar with to answer the following questions in the Singapore context (and for foreign/exchange students, in the context of your respective countries):

What are the relevant agencies and their policies on ICT?

What are the areas of law that are most impacted by ICT?

What is the government's position on Artificial Intelligence?

What are the latest legal developments on this field?

Also, critically consider the analysis and recommendations made in the report on Applying Ethical Principles for Artificial Intelligence in Regulatory Reform, SAL Law Reform Committee, July 2020. Evaluate it against the second version of the Model AI Governance Framework from the IMDA. Also, look at the Discussion Paper on GAI released on 6 June 2023. Take note of this even as we embark on the ‘tour’ of disparate ICT topics from Session 2 onwards, and the implications for each of those areas of law that will be covered in class.

C. ASSESSMENT METHOD AND GRADING DISTRIBUTION

Class Participation 10% (individually assessed)

Group Project 30% (group assessed)

Written Exam 60% (2 hour open book examination)

This course will be fully conducted in the classroom setting. Project groups will be formed by week 2, projects will be assigned from week 3, and presentations will begin from week 4 with written assignments to be due for submission a weeks after presentation. Further details and instructions will be given after the groups are formed, but before the first project assignment.

D. RECOMMENDED TEXTBOOK AND READINGS

The main textbook is: Warren B. Chik & Saw Cheng Lim, Information and Communications Technology Law in Singapore (Academy Publishing, Law Practice Series, July 2020). You can purchase the book (both physical and electronic copies) from the Singapore Academy of Law Publishing (ask for the student discount). If you prefer, there are copies available in the reserves section of the Law Library that you can use. The other useful reference will be: Chesterman, Goh & Phang, Law and Technology in Singapore (Academy Publishing, Law Practice Series, September 2021).

Due to the rapid pace of development in the law in some areas of analysis, students will also be given instructions and pre-assigned readings via this blog one week before each lesson. Students need only refer to the SMU eLearn website for administrative information such as the Project Schedule and the Grade Book as well as to share project papers and presentation materials. Students will be expected to analyse legislative provisions and/or cases that are indicated as required reading for each week.

Free access to the local legislation and subsidiary legislation may be found at the Singapore Statutes Online website at: https://sso.agc.gov.sg. 

Local cases are accessible through the Legal Workbench in Lawnet. The hyperlink can be found under the Law Databases column on the SMU Library’s Law Research Navigator at: http://researchguides.smu.edu.sg/LAW. 

Other online secondary legal materials on Singapore law that you may find useful include Singapore Law Watch (http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg) and Singapore Law SG (https://www.singaporelawblog.sg). 

There are also other secondary resources made available from the SMU Library when doing research for your projects such as the many other digital databases available from the LRN (e.g. Lexis, Westlaw and Hein online that are all available under the Law Databases column) and the books and periodicals that are available on the library shelves.

[onceafanalwaysshallbeafan]

I wonder if it's also part of the right of the free press to choose to seek payment for what they publish? Because that would make the portions of FOSTA-SESTA that create liability for payment networks for promoting or helping with the monetization of the publication of any copyrightable information unconstitutional as applied to payment networks or any payment intermediary.

The argument that I would make goes something like this: Presses are -expensive-. The raw material for the presses (paper and ink) is also expensive. And so is creating copyrightable material of any kind of professional quality (more than 100 hours of work goes into the creation of anything copyrightable and distributed via book or the sites like Gumroad which allow the sales of licenses to use and the distribution of copyrighted information). Newspapers and booksellers have, ever since their invention, always had to gain revenue just to support the operations of the presses as well as pay for the content to print and even the basic taxes for the real estste the presses sit on. They do this either by selling copies or subscriptions or by going with entirely ad-supported business models. And the Internet has also been seen as a press mechanism -- with much overlap in the same kinds of operational costs. Shutting out any mechanism for payment for anything copyrightable or published is infringing on the rights of the free press. And the power to regulate interstate commerce cannot overwhelm the fundamental "Congress shall pass no law infringing on the freedom of the press."

Seriously, it amounts to content-based pre-existing restriction, the same way CFR 2257 was judged to be.

I think EFF and @aclu might consider this as a potential vector of attack.

Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer, so I can only try to share the seed of the idea, and let it take root where it may.

one frustrating element of the new content bans on gumroad and patreon is that they're doing it to stay in line with their payment processors' policies, which themselves are in place to stay in line with FOSTA-SESTA.

which is a law passed in the united states, a country of which i am not a citizen and in which i do not live. i was legally prohibited from voting for or against FOSTA-SESTA, but because the platforms and payment providers i use are based there, i am expected to comply with it anyway.

and the tiktok situation shows us that any platform based outside the US can and will be either blocked from operating within it or forcibly divested from its foreign owners.

this is just another facet of american empire, by the way. it's more than bombs and guns and client states: it's that the US leverages its dominance over technology and finance to set policy for, effectively, the entire world.

[petleyhare123]

Understanding Business Insurance: Essential Protection for Companies

The Importance of Business Insurance

Running a business comes with various risks, from property damage to liability claims. Securing comprehensive business insurance helps mitigate financial losses and ensures continuity in the face of unexpected challenges. Whether you operate a small startup or a large enterprise, having the right coverage tailored to your industry is crucial.

Navigating Business Insurance in Ontario

Every province has unique regulations and requirements, making it vital to understand the specifics of business insurance Ontario. Coverage options vary depending on the industry, size, and operations of a company. Common policies include property insurance, professional liability coverage, and commercial vehicle insurance. Assessing risks and working with experts can help business owners make informed decisions.

Why Work With an Insurance Broker?

Selecting the right policy can be complex, especially when considering the various factors affecting coverage. Partnering with an insurance broker business provides companies with access to expert guidance and multiple policy options. Brokers work independently of insurers, allowing them to offer unbiased recommendations that align with a business’s unique needs and budget.

The Role of an Insurance Brokerage in Business Protection

An insurance brokerage business acts as an intermediary between companies and insurance providers, helping clients secure optimal coverage. These firms assess business risks, compare policies, and negotiate terms to ensure businesses receive the best protection. By leveraging their expertise, companies can avoid coverage gaps and secure policies that provide financial stability in case of unforeseen events.

Key Factors to Consider When Choosing Coverage

Industry-Specific Risks – Understanding potential threats within a particular industry helps determine necessary coverage.

Policy Inclusions and Exclusions – Reviewing policy details ensures businesses are aware of what is covered and what is not.

Legal Requirements – Compliance with provincial regulations is essential to avoid penalties and coverage issues.

Premium Costs – Balancing affordability with adequate protection is crucial for financial sustainability.

Claims Process Efficiency – Choosing an insurer with a straightforward claims process can prevent delays during critical times.

Securing the right insurance policy is a vital investment for any company. By working with experienced professionals and thoroughly assessing coverage options, businesses can protect their assets and maintain long-term stability.

[continentaladjusters]

Continental Adjusters: Your Trusted Partner in Insurance Claims

Navigating insurance claims can be a daunting task, but having the right partner makes all the difference. Continental Adjusters is a leading name in the industry, serving as the crucial link between policyholders and insurance companies. With a reputation built on expertise, professionalism, and integrity, they specialize in assessing and settling claims fairly, ensuring both parties receive the representation they deserve.

Who Are Continental Adjusters?

Insurance adjusters play a pivotal role in evaluating claims and determining the appropriate compensation for policyholders. Continental Adjusters excels in this area, offering expert claims management, loss assessment, and negotiation services. Their mission is to ensure that every claim is handled with precision and fairness, whether working on behalf of an insurance company or an individual policyholder.

Areas of Expertise

Continental Adjusters specializes in various types of insurance claims, including:

Property Claims: From home damages to commercial property losses, they conduct thorough evaluations, estimate repair costs, and ensure policyholders receive rightful compensation.

Auto Claims: After an accident, they assess vehicle damages, provide accurate valuations, and facilitate prompt claim settlements.

Liability Claims: When an incident involves injury or property damage due to negligence, they investigate the circumstances, determine liability, and ensure fair compensation is awarded.

Comprehensive Services Offered

Continental Adjusters delivers a full suite of services designed to simplify the claims process:

Claims Evaluation & Documentation: Their team meticulously inspects damages, gathers crucial documentation, and assesses the full extent of losses, providing transparency for all parties involved.

Negotiation & Settlement: Acting as skilled intermediaries, they negotiate settlements to ensure policyholders receive fair compensation, aligning payouts with policy entitlements.

Independent Claims Handling: For policyholders seeking an unbiased claims assessment, they offer independent evaluations to prevent undue influence and resolve disputes efficiently.

Expert Guidance: From explaining policy terms to advising on the best course of action, Continental Adjusters ensures clients remain informed and confident throughout the claims process.

Why Choose Continental Adjusters?

With a history of successfully handling thousands of claims, Continental Adjusters has earned the trust of both insurance companies and policyholders. Their commitment to fairness, transparency, and professionalism makes them a top choice in the industry.

Client-Centric Approach

What sets Continental Adjusters apart is their unwavering dedication to client satisfaction. Whether dealing with a minor vehicle claim or a significant property loss, their team goes above and beyond to secure the best possible outcome for their clients.

Insurance claims can be complex, but Continental Adjusters simplifies the process with their expertise and dedication. Whether you’re an insurance company in need of reliable claims support or a policyholder seeking just compensation, they provide the guidance and advocacy necessary for a fair and efficient resolution. Trust Continental Adjusters to be your steadfast partner in navigating the claims landscape.

[bllsbailey]

Trump's Meme Coin Made Nearly $100 Million in Trading Fees

Entities behind President Donald Trump's crypto coin have accumulated close to $100 million in trading fees in less than two weeks, according to estimates from three blockchain analysis firms, a large windfall from a venture that has seen tens of thousands of small traders lose money.

The meme coin, known as $Trump, was launched by the president Jan. 17 and quickly surged, reaching a peak of over $14.5 billion in overall market value by Jan. 19, the day before his inauguration. It has since slumped by two-thirds.

Three crypto data firms, including Merkle Science and Chainalysis, analyzed the blockchain, a publicly available ledger that shows all transactions involving $Trump, for Reuters. They estimated the $Trump token had generated between $86 million and $100 million in trading fees by Jan. 30.

The estimates far exceed what has been previously reported.

One of the entities behind the crypto coin is a company owned by Trump, called CIC Digital. The official website for $Trump says CIC Digital will "receive trading revenue derived from trading activities" of the meme coin. Reuters could not determine what portion of the fees so far, if any, had accrued to Trump personally, nor the ownership of the other entities behind the coin.

The creators of the meme coin receive a share of the trading fees from Meteora, a little-known crypto exchange where the $Trump coins were first sold, the blockchain analyzes showed. At least fifty of the largest investors in the coin have made profits in excess of $10 million each on the $Trump coin, according to Chainalysis. At the same time, some 200,000 crypto wallets, most with small holdings, lost money on $Trump on the exchange, it said.

Trump has pledged to put his assets in a trust managed by his children on entering the White House. His son, Eric Trump, speaking on behalf of the Trump Organization, told Reuters in response to questions about the fees he is proud of what "we continue to accomplish in crypto. $Trump is currently the hottest digital meme on earth."

"We are just getting started," he added.

The White House responded to a list of questions from Reuters with a two-page fact sheet describing Trump's executive order earlier this month on digital financial technology. It did not address questions about the trading fees.

Trump has promised to become the first "crypto president" and make America the "crypto capital of the planet" by overhauling regulations and promoting ownership of digital assets. Several key figures in his administration, cabinet and circles hold crypto or have ties to the crypto industry.

But the combination of large dollar amounts around his crypto ventures and their opaque nature has also sparked criticism from ethics experts and Trump's political opponents in the Democratic party.

"There's an ethical concern that in effect he has the power to regulate his own business," said Richard Briffault, a law professor at Columbia University.

Reuters was unable to determine how much of Trump's own wealth comes from this newest crypto business because precise details of his ownership are not public. Trump's other crypto investments include two decentralized finance (DeFi) projects – a type of platform that connects buyers and sellers without the need for traditional intermediaries like banks – and a series of non-fungible tokens, a type of digital asset.

Opaque Ownership

Meme coins are crypto tokens that feature branding or names referencing memes or internet trends. They are usually highly volatile and have scant practical use. Trump's coin, for example, is intended as an expression of support for the president's call to "fight, fight, fight" after he was shot at a campaign rally last year.

The exact ownership of Trump's meme coins is hidden behind opaque limited liability companies. Fight Fight Fight, a Delaware-registered company, is the owner of the official website for the coin, gettrumpmemes.com.

William Zanker, a Trump business associate who in 2022 collaborated with him on digital assets, is listed as the primary contact for Fight Fight Fight in registration documents. He did not respond to a request for comment.

Fight Fight Fight is owned by Trump's CIC Digital and Celebration Cards, according to the meme coin's website. Reuters could not ascertain the identity of the people behind Celebration Cards, which also receives revenue from the trading activities of the meme coin.

The official $Trump website says up to 1 billion $Trump coins will be sold over the next 36 months. Initially, a tranche of 200 million $Trump coins was released to the market, when the coin's creators transferred them to three crypto wallets, the blockchain analysis shows. The meme coin's website says Fight Fight Fight and CIC Digital own the remaining 800 million coins, worth around $16 billion at the coin's current price of about $20.

Merkle Science said the three crypto wallets were the earliest holders of the $Trump tokens and received the coins directly from their creators without purchasing them. Chainalysis said that, based on its assessment, the three wallet addresses "belong to creators of the $Trump coin."

Blockchain analysis firms track the movement of crypto coins on the public ledger that underpins most digital assets. They connect digital wallets – which are anonymous – with known individuals or entities via proprietary research and investigations.

Trading Fees

The wallets began trading the tokens on Meteora, a DeFi exchange, the blockchain analyzes show.

Traders on Meteora pay a fee to the coin creators for providing liquidity, a function that enables buyers and sellers to trade an asset smoothly. The creators do so by putting some of their assets in so-called "liquidity pools," which then stand ready to enable trading on the exchange.

Meteora says it allows creators to "mint a meme coin and earn fees for life." The exchange also receives fees.

Ben Chow, the Meteora co-founder, said in a Telegram chat that he did not know anything about the team behind the Trump token. In response to a question on how Meteora was involved with the launch of the $Trump token, Chow said: "I didn't connect with the team precisely."

He added "the team reached out" to his co-founder, who is known only as Meow. Reuters could not reach Meow.

The fees on Meteora vary during spells of market volatility, its website says, with "surge pricing" in place, where fees rise with higher demand.

Between Jan.17 and Jan. 30, the three wallets earned fees of $86 million through these activities on Meteora, Merkle Science estimated. Chainalysis assessed that the three had earned about $94 million in trading fees over the same period.

A third blockchain analytics firm, whose founder requested it not be identified, said by Jan. 29 it calculated the meme coin had garnered roughly $100 million in fees.