In addition to the sibling comment about safe harbor hours, the FCC regulates not speech but the shared airwaves. Print is irrelevant, and that’s why you can do whatever you want on cable.
Also, the FCC does not directly set standards and instead responds to complaints from the communities in which the broadcast is available. So it’s conceivable that in an environment where nobody cared, you could do this at any time of day.
In various contexts, you would draw the distinction here between `ads` (that is, marketing sold against large swaths of content) and `sponsorships` (marketing sold against a small targeted set of content) but the distinction is subtle and the terms are pretty overloaded.
The words came from a message written by the people you are calling script kiddies, rather than being editorializing by bleepingcomputer, as you seem to believe.
Entitlements are flags (like AndroidManifest permissions) for apps allowing them to do things. It’s not something a user will ever encounter.
In this case it is a flag indicating to the reviewer etc that the app links to a website for account creation and management rather than doing it all within the app.
To me it seems the very distinction is toxic. All users of a platform should be considered equal, not separated into developers and consumers. Creating your own apps for whatever an audience to use it (for yourself, for specific people you want or for everyone) should be considered a normal feature any user may use.
I think you can probably re-read and understand that their entire post is about the fact that Ticketmaster hosts, processes, and charges fees on resale tickets.
I know that you already know this, based on your other posts on this thread.
The technology referenced in the post above is, at least in part, to prevent you from reselling the ticket without involving TicketMaster. That may be justified as a way to prevent selling the same ticket more than once, but it’s certainly the case that this is one of many possible approaches, and it’s the one that most favors this business.
It would probably be criminal for the company to act any other way, so I’m not claiming any evil doing here.
> I think you can probably re-read and understand that their entire post is about the fact that Ticketmaster hosts, processes, and charges fees on resale tickets.
> Aside: All of the above work on many operating systems and support API’s other than epoll, which is Linux specific. The Internet is mostly made of Linux, so epoll is the API that matters.
That quote is talking about epoll-using software (Go, nginx and 'most programming languages', including Rust), not polling-based APIs. You should instead quote:
> without BSD’s kqueue (which preceded epoll by two years), we’d really be in trouble because the only alternatives were proprietary (/dev/poll in Solaris 8 and I/O Completion Ports in Windows NT 3.5).
> or just relied on people adding his URL manually to Apple Podcasts, but come on. Nobody would do that.
You mean by clicking a link on his website?
How likely is it that google would block joe rogan's website from search results for joe rogan?
I feel like people keep dodging a central issue here - joe rogan is not an independent being silenced on the open web by centralized platforms - he effectively sold the show to one of the platforms. They decide what happens with it (specifics of the terms of their agreement notwithstanding).
this isn't the first controversial audio programming on the internet, but it is the first one that is effectively owned by one of the listening platforms that actually has the power to do something without wading into unfathomably complicated waters, if they want to. that they (until today?) seemed not to want to - or to pretend that their relationship to the show is the same as twitter's relationship to me - is what is keeping this in the news.
To be 100% clear - it's not obvious to me what anyone should do in this case; joe, spotify, etc. I have my own opinions about the cost / benefit on the content but I also know enough to expect that things are probably more complicated than the popular narrative I have access to.
What I do know for sure is that Joe would have more control of his show's destiny, not less, if he had decided to keep distributing in a way that did not give a single entity complete control over whether a given piece of content could be distributed at all.
Also, the FCC does not directly set standards and instead responds to complaints from the communities in which the broadcast is available. So it’s conceivable that in an environment where nobody cared, you could do this at any time of day.