It means roughly... well you can read this Vox explainer but you might not get it.
I kid, I kid! (I millennial actually, which in my case means closer to 40 than 30).
How about #FreezePeach ?
Bit sad about this but...
"Meme war" for the online face of conflicts that have touched NZ and places around the world.
Or "weaponised media" for similar reasons.
Thanks Graeme, really useful analysis!
I'm not speaking for my employer or anyone else here, though my day job has me keeping half an eye on this to see if the law is striking a reasonable balance, or causing particular problems. My personal view is that we don't know yet, but in this case the events so far seem consistent with the framework playing out as intended, and in a way that protects free expression online. We'll learn more if it goes to court and gets a formal response in that venue.
You usefully explain the assessment of harmful communications in civil claims. I'd add that the remedies for civil complaints are procedural, for example offering an apology, right of reply, or removal of content (hopefully the image conveys that). Remedies sought and given will have implications for free expression. For example, does a right of reply enhance free expression, limit it, or a bit of both?
As I understand it, breaching a court order is the only way to get a monetary penalty in relation to a civil complaint. That's different, as you point out, from the criminal provisions. My understanding is that the Police have mainly brought criminal charges in relation to sharing of intimate images of people, particularly in relationship breakdown situations. That's not the stereotype of "cyberbullying", but does seem to be the kind of thing the Act is meant to offer a response to.
In the background here, as elsewhere, may be lurking disagreement on approaches to free expression. Forums where "anything goes" might serve the loud or rude, but thereby discourage others from seeking, receiving, and imparting information. Different lenses on free expression might mean people are talking past each other in some of these conversations.
Among the sad parts of this story is that the "foreign money" conversation could have happened without anti-migrant language or dog-whistles.
David Hood had a good go at telling that story here (with the graph above), drawing on data to show a divergence between the rise in NZ house values and domestic borrowing. That "magic money" came from somewhere, and is a legitimate domestic policy target regardless of its source in terms of countries, geopolitics, or cultural ties.
A key paragraph:
Is all the magic money offshore capital? We just don't know. There is a lack of evidence of it coming from other parts inside the New Zealand economy, and given the hundreds of billions of dollars, a local source would be somewhat obvious. We also know that in other countries, with more internal housing markets, household debt does not just match the pattern of house value, the amounts add up to the same in gains. In New Zealand there is a 300 billion shortfall.
Hi Russell! Firstly, thanks again for coming out and helping InternetNZ run our copyright event on Tuesday night. I'll let you know when we've got video from that online.
The pressures from faster speeds are interesting indeed, and are affecting a range of decisions. The latest telco review paper from MBIE does go as far as a 100/20 anchor product. But that still seems pretty low as a baseline for 2020, when people are buying Gigabit now.
AT’s planned operating pattern will see trains from the western line pass through the CRL before heading towards Onehunga. It seems like there’s a bit of gerrymandering going on this. If AT are talking about delivering single seat rides then they should also include all the people next to the western line, even just the people near the inner west and CRL stations add almost an extra 60k to the walking catchment.
For now, coming from the West for morning flights means going into town and out, or driving. Would be lovely to have a one-seat option!
Oh, and the value was established at $2 million in 1991 :-)
The value of a statistical life is an attempt at "how much do we pay to prevent one death?".
An important tool in the kit when finite resources are being dished out. There is weirdness though, when people might be willing to spend more to prevent road deaths than house fire deaths. Also probably suffers a degree of ad-hoc adjustment.
Interesting piece at The Wireless raises more questions. Quote:
No matter how unpalatable we might find it, people place a hypothetical value on things all the time. If you decide to jaywalk, or to drive at 110km/h, you’ve weighed up the increased risk against the time saved from walking to the nearest crossing or keeping to the speed limit. It’s a cost-benefit analysis like any other; equating time with money is just an adage away.