A $291 Adobe cancelation fee has provoked fierce criticism of the creative software company.
A post from a customer has gone viral on Twitter, after he discovered that he would have to pay nearly $300 to bring his Creative Cloud subscription to an end.
It has sparked a discussion about Adobe’s practices, with many others coming forward to say that they too have faced extremely steep cancelation fees when they’ve tried to cut ties with the company.
A screenshot uploaded to the micro-blogging site by Twitter user @Mrdaddguy showed that they faced a $291.45 fee to cancel their Adobe Creative Cloud plan.
At the time of publication the tweet has attracted more than 13,000 retweets, more than 4,000 quote tweets, and more than 70,000 likes.
Twitter users have been almost universally in agreement in their criticism of the company, with some describing the cancelation fee as “absurd”, “disgusting,” and likening it to being held hostage by the company.
“Adobe has been holding me hostage for the better part of a year on a free trial that magically converted to a yearlong subscription with a wild cancellation fee,” wrote Twitter user Laura Hudson. “Blink twice if they have you too.”
Some have weighed into the conversation by suggesting alternatives to Adobe’s suite of products, such as Clip Studio Paint, Procreate, Blender, Krita, Paint tool Sai, many of which are either free to use or available as one-time purchases.
Others, meanwhile, are arguing that Adobe’s penalty fees are so severe that it should be considered “morally correct” to pirate the company’s software in revenge.
“Adobe on their hands and knees begging us to pirate their software,” wrote Twitter user JoshDeLearner.
“This thread is a great reminder of why it’s morally correct to pirate Adobe products,” wrote Dozing Starlight. A multitude of similar tweets can be found here.
About two weeks ago, millions of Google Chrome users were signed up for an experiment they never agreed to be a part of. Google had just launched a test run for Federated Learning of Cohorts—or FLoC–a new kind of ad-targeting tech meant to be less invasive than the average cookie. In a blog post announcing the trial, the company noted that it would only impact a “small percentage” of random users across ten different countries, including the US, Mexico, and Canada, with plans to expand globally as the trials run on.
These users probably won’t notice anything different when they click around on Chrome, but behind the scenes, that browser is quietly keeping a close eye on every site they visit and ad they click on. These users will have their browsing habits profiled and packaged up, and shared with countless advertisers for profit. Sometime this month, Chrome will give users an option to opt-out of this experiment, according to Google’s blog post—but as of right now, their only option is to block all third-party cookies in the browser.
That is if they even know that these tests are happening in the first place. While I’ve written my fairshare about FLoC up until this point, the loudest voices I’ve seen pipe up on the topic are either marketing nerds, policy nerds, or policy nerds that work in marketing. This might be due to the fact that—aside from a few blog posts here or there—the only breadcrumbs Google’s given to people looking to learn more about FLoC are inscrutable pages of code, an inscrutable GitHub repo, and inscrutable mailing lists. Even if Google bothered asking for consent before enrolling a random sample of its Chrome user base into this trial, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t know what they were consenting to.
(For the record, you can check whether you’ve been opted into this initial test using this handy tool from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.)
[…]
The trackers that FLoC is meant to replace are known as “third-party cookies.” We have a pretty in-depth guide to the way this sort of tech works, but in a nutshell: these are snippets of code from adtech companies that websites can bake into the code underpinning their pages. Those bits of code monitor your on-site behavior—and sometimes other personal details—before the adtech org behind that cookie beams that data back to its own servers.
[…]
The catch is that Google still has all that juicy user-level data because it controls Chrome. They’re also still free to keep doing what they’ve always been doing with that data: sharing it with federal agencies, accidentally leaking it, and, y’know, just being Google.
[…]
“Isn’t that kind of… anti-competitive?”
It depends on who you ask. Competition authorities in the UK certainly think so, as do trade groups here in the US. It’s also been wrapped up into a Congressional probe, at least one class action, and a massive multi-state antitrust case spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Their qualms with FLoC are pretty easy to understand. Google already controls about 30% of the digital ad market in the US, just slightly more than Facebook—the other half of the so-called Duopoly—that controls 25% (for context, Microsoft controls about 4%).
While that dominance has netted Google billions upon billions of dollars per year, it’s recently netted multiple mounting antitrust investigations against the company, too. And those investigations have pretty universally painted a picture of Google as a blatant autocrat of the ad-based economy, and one that largely got away with abhorrent behavior because smaller rivals were too afraid—or unable—to speak up. This is why many of them are speaking up about FLoC now.
“But at least it’s good for privacy, right?”
Again, it depends who you ask! Google thinks so, but the EFF sure doesn’t. In March, the EFF put out a detailed piece breaking down some of the biggest gaps in FLoC’s privacy promises. If a particular website prompts you to give up some sort of first-party data—by having you sign up with your email or phone number, for example—your FLoC identifier isn’t really anonymous anymore.
Aside from that hiccup, the EFF points out that your FLoC cohort follows you everywhere you go across the web. This isn’t a big deal if my cohort is just “people who like to reupholster furniture,” but it gets really dicey if that cohort happens to inadvertently mold itself around a person’s mental health disorder or their sexuality based on the sites that person browses. While Google’s pledged to keep FloC’s from creating cohorts based on these sorts of “sensitive categories,” the EFF again pointed out that Google’s approach was riddled with holes.
Zachary Horwitz never made it big on the Sunset Strip — there was the uncredited part in Brad Pitt’s “Fury” and a host of roles in low-budget thrillers and horror flicks. But federal charges suggest he had acting talent, duping several financial firms out of hundreds of millions of dollars and enabling him to live the Hollywood dream after all.
That meant chartered flights and a $6 million mansion — replete with wine cellar and home gym. Horwitz even included a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label, which retails for more than $200, as a gift to investors along with his company’s “annual report.”
The claims are outlined in legal documents that U.S. prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission released this week alleging Horwitz, 34, was running a massive Ponzi scheme. His scam: a made-up story that he had exclusive deals to sell films to Netflix Inc. and HBO. Dating back to 2014, the SEC said he raised a shocking $690 million in fraudulent funds. On Tuesday, Horwitz was arrested.
Horwitz, who went by the screen name “Zach Avery,” used fabricated contracts and fake emails to swindle at least five firms, according to the government. Investors were issued promissory notes through his firm 1inMM Capital to acquire the rights to movies that would be sold to Netflix and HBO for distribution in Latin America, Australia, New Zealand and other locations.
The claims of business relationships with the media companies were bogus, according to prosecutors, with a Netflix executive going so far as to send a cease-and-desist order to Horwitz and his attorney in February.
While Horwitz promised returns in excess of 35%, he was actually relying on new investors to pay off old ones, according to the SEC, which won a court order to freeze his assets. Ryan Hedges, Horwitz’s attorney, didn’t respond to requests for comment.
China’s antitrust regulators slapped a record fine on one of the country’s largest technology conglomerates, closing a months-long investigation that began
and setting the precedent for the government to use anti-monopoly rules to regulate the country’s Big Tech.
Alibaba Group Holding, the world’s largest e-commerce company and owner of this newspaper, was fined 18.2 billion yuan (US$2.8 billion) by the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR).
The Hangzhou-based company “abused its dominant market position in China’s online retail platform service market since 2015 by forcing online merchants to open stores or take part in promotions on its platforms,” compelling the market to “
, the world’s largest supplier of mobile chips, in 2015.
[…]
The antitrust investigation of Alibaba was part of the Chinese government’s effort to tame the unfettered growth of the country’s tech behemoths, and to ringfence financial security and prevent risk amid a period of slowing economic growth during the coronavirus pandemic. It has been widely watched, for ramifications that could potentially affect the entire ecosystem of businesses and economy centred around the internet.
The hefty fine was aimed at promoting the “healthy and continuous development of the country’s internet industry” and was by no means a denigration of the “important role of internet platforms in economic and social development,” and shows no change in the state’s “attitude of supporting internet platforms,” according to a commentary by the People’s Daily, the mouthpiece newspaper of the ruling Communist Party.
Signal announced on Tuesday that as a part of its latest beta, it’s adding support for a new Signal Payments feature that allows Signal users to send “privacy focused payments as easily as sending or receiving a message.”
These payments are only going to be available to Android and iOS Signal users in the UK during this beta, and will use one specific payment network: MobileCoin, an open-source cryptocurrency that is itself still a prototype, according to the MobileCoin GitHub repo. The same page notes that the MobileCoin Wallet that someone would need in order to send these payments back and forth isn’t yet available for download by anyone in the U.S. As Wired notes, however, this is a new feature that the company wants to expand globally once it’s out of its infancy.
Unlike other popular texting apps that also offer a payment component—like, say, Facebook Messenger—MobileCoin doesn’t rely on funneling money from a user’s bank account in order to function. Instead, it’s a currency that lives on the blockchain, allowing payments made over MobileCoin to bypass the banking systems that routinely work with major data brokers in order to pawn off people’s transaction data.
Many technologists viscerally felt yesterday’s announcement as a punch to the gut when we heard that the Signal messaging app was bundling an embedded cryptocurrency. This news really cut to heart of what many technologists have felt before when we as loyal users have been exploited and betrayed by corporations, but this time it felt much deeper because it introduced a conflict of interest from our fellow technologists that we truly believed were advancing a cause many of us also believed in. So many of us have spent significant time and social capital moving our friends and family away from the exploitative data siphon platforms that Facebook et al offer, and on to Signal in the hopes of breaking the cycle of commercial exploitation of our online relationships. And some of us feel used.
Signal users are overwhelmingly tech savvy consumers and we’re not idiots. Do they think we don’t see through the thinly veiled pump and dump scheme that’s proposed? It’s an old scam with a new face.
Allegedly the controlling entity prints 250 million units of some artificially scarce trashcoin called MOB (coincidence?) of which the issuing organization controls 85% of the supply. This token then floats on a shady offshore cryptocurrency exchange hiding in the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas, where users can buy and exchange the token. The token is wash traded back and forth by insiders and the exchange itself to artificially pump up the price before it’s dumped on users in the UK to buy to allegedly use as “payments”. All of this while insiders are free to silently use information asymmetry to cash out on the influx of pumped hype-driven buys before the token crashes in value. Did I mention that the exchange that floats the token is the primary investor in the company itself, does anyone else see a major conflict of interest here?
Let it be said that everything here is probably entirely legal or there simply is no precedent yet. The question everyone is asking before these projects launch now though is: should it be?
Some people on Reddit are throwing about that they donated so they feel they should be able to tell the developers what they should and should not be doing as well.
IMHO an open source developer is free to work on whatever projects they choose and combine them as much as they want. They are not “paid” by the couple of dollars someone donates every month. This is a completely optional extra setting which is off by default. Signal is not mining crypto with the app. People are free to fork Signal into another project without the payment option. Is it a pump and dump? I hope not. What is for sure though is that money is tight in the Free Open Source (FOSS) arena and it’s not surprising that people are jumping in strange directions to find a way to monetise a hugely popular product which is only causing them stress due to rude, know it all users who refuse to actually contribute, an idealistic fanatic mindset by the FOSS group who have salaries and hardly any income at all.
Before he lost it all—all $20 billion—Bill Hwang was the greatest trader you’d never heard of.
Starting in 2013, he parlayed more than $200 million left over from his shuttered hedge fund into a mind-boggling fortune by betting on stocks. Had he folded his hand in early March and cashed in, Hwang, 57, would have stood out among the world’s billionaires. There are richer men and women, of course, but their money is mostly tied up in businesses, real estate, complex investments, sports teams, and artwork. Hwang’s $20 billion net worth was almost as liquid as a government stimulus check. And then, in two short days, it was gone.
[…]
Modest on the outside, Hwang had all the swagger he needed inside the Wall Street prime-brokerage departments that finance big investors. He was a “Tiger cub,” an alumnus of Tiger Management, the hedge fund powerhouse that Julian Robertson founded. In the 2000s, Hwang ran his own fund, Tiger Asia Management, which peaked at about $10 billion in assets.
It didn’t matter that he’d been accused of insider trading by U.S. securities regulators or that he pleaded guilty to wire fraud on behalf of Tiger Asia in 2012. Archegos, the family office he founded to manage his personal wealth, was a lucrative client for the banks, and they were eager to lend Hwang enormous sums.
On March 25, when Hwang’s financiers were finally able to compare notes, it became clear that his trading strategy was strikingly simple. Archegos appears to have plowed most of the money it borrowed into a handful of stocks—ViacomCBS, GSX Techedu, and Shopify among them.
[…]
At least once, Hwang stepped over the line between aggressive and illegal. In 2012, after years of investigations, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Tiger Asia of insider trading and manipulation in two Chinese bank stocks. The agency said Hwang “crossed the wall,” receiving confidential information about pending share offerings from the underwriting banks and then using it to reap illicit profits.
Hwang settled that case without admitting or denying wrongdoing, and Tiger Asia pleaded guilty to a U.S. Department of Justice charge of wire fraud.
[…]
U.S. rules prevent individual investors from buying securities with more than 50% of the money borrowed on margin. No such limits apply to hedge funds and family offices. People familiar with Archegos say the firm steadily ramped up its leverage. Initially that meant about “2x,” or $1 million borrowed for every $1 million of capital. By late March the leverage was 5x or more.
Hwang also kept his banks in the dark by trading via swap agreements. In a typical swap, a bank gives its client exposure to an underlying asset, such as a stock. While the client gains—or loses—from any changes in price, the bank shows up in filings as the registered holder of the shares.
That’s how Hwang was able to amass huge positions so quietly. And because lenders had details only of their own dealings with him, they, too, couldn’t know he was piling on leverage in the same stocks via swaps with other banks. ViacomCBS Inc. is one example. By late March, Archegos had exposure to tens of millions of shares of the media conglomerate through Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Credit Suisse, and Wells Fargo & Co. The largest holder of record, indexing giant Vanguard Group Inc., had 59 million shares.
[…]
At some point in the past few years, Hwang’s investments shifted from mainly tech companies to a more eclectic mix. Media conglomerates ViacomCBS and Discovery Inc. became huge holdings. So did at least four Chinese stocks: GSX Techedu, Baidu, Iqiyi, and Vipshop.
Although it’s impossible to know exactly when Archegos did those swap trades, there are clues in the regulatory filings by his banks. Starting in the second quarter of 2020, all Hwang’s banks became big holders of stocks he bet on. Morgan Stanley went from 5.22 million shares of Vipshop Holdings Ltd. as of June 30, to 44.6 million by Dec. 31.
Leverage was playing a growing role, and Hwang was looking for more. Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley had been doing business with Archegos for years, unperturbed by Hwang’s brush with regulators. Goldman, however, had blacklisted him. Compliance officials who frowned on his checkered past blocked repeated efforts internally to open an account for Archegos, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.
[…]
The fourth quarter of 2020 was a fruitful one for Hwang. While the S&P 500 rose almost 12%, seven of the 10 stocks Archegos was known to hold gained more than 30%, with Baidu, Vipshop, and Farfetch jumping at least 70%.
All that activity made Archegos one of Wall Street’s most coveted clients. People familiar with the situation say it was paying prime brokers tens of millions of dollars a year in fees, possibly more than $100 million in total. As his swap accounts churned out cash, Hwang kept accumulating extra capital to invest—and to lever up. Goldman finally relented and signed on Archegos as a client in late 2020. Weeks later it all would end in a flash.
Damage to Hwang’s Investments
Share price
Data: Compiled by Bloomberg
The first in a cascade of events during the week of March 22 came shortly after the 4 p.m. close of trading that Monday in New York. ViacomCBS, struggling to keep up with Apple TV, Disney+, Home Box Office, and Netflix, announced a $3 billion sale of stock and convertible debt. The company’s shares, propelled by Hwang’s buying, had tripled in four months. Raising money to invest in streaming made sense. Or so it seemed in the ViacomCBS C-suite.
Instead, the stock tanked 9% on Tuesday and 23% on Wednesday. Hwang’s bets suddenly went haywire, jeopardizing his swap agreements. A few bankers pleaded with him to sell shares; he would take losses and survive, they reasoned, avoiding a default. Hwang refused, according to people with knowledge of those discussions, the long-ago lesson from Robertson evidently forgotten.
That Thursday his prime brokers held a series of emergency meetings. Hwang, say people with swaps experience, likely had borrowed roughly $85 million for every $20 million, investing $100 and setting aside $5 to post margin as needed. But the massive portfolio had cratered so quickly that its losses blew through that small buffer as well as his capital.
The dilemma for Hwang’s lenders was obvious. If the stocks in his swap accounts rebounded, everyone would be fine. But if even one bank flinched and started selling, they’d all be exposed to plummeting prices. Credit Suisse wanted to wait.
Late that afternoon, without a word to its fellow lenders, Morgan Stanley made a preemptive move. The firm quietly unloaded $5 billion of its Archegos holdings at a discount, mainly to a group of hedge funds. On Friday morning, well before the 9:30 a.m. New York open, Goldman started liquidating $6.6 billion in blocks of Baidu, Tencent Music Entertainment Group, and Vipshop. It soon followed with $3.9 billion of ViacomCBS, Discovery, Farfetch, Iqiyi, and GSX Techedu.
When the smoke finally cleared, Goldman, Deutsche Bank AG, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo had escaped the Archegos fire sale unscathed. There’s no question they moved faster to sell. It’s also possible they had extended less leverage or demanded more margin. As of now, Credit Suisse and Nomura appear to have sustained the greatest damage. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., another prime broker, has disclosed $300 million in likely losses.
It’s all eerily reminiscent of the subprime-mortgage crisis 14 years ago. Then, as now, the trouble was a series of increasingly irresponsible loans. As long as housing prices kept rising, lenders ignored the growing risks. Only when homeowners stopped paying did reality bite: The banks all had financed so much borrowing that the fallout couldn’t be contained.
[…]
The best thing anyone can say about the Archegos collapse is that it didn’t spark a market meltdown. The worst thing is that it was an entirely preventable disaster made possible by Hwang’s lenders. Had they limited his leverage or insisted on more visibility into the business he did across Wall Street, Archegos would have been playing with fire instead of dynamite. It might not have defaulted. Regulators are to blame, too. As Congress was told at hearings following the GameStop Corp. debacle in January, there’s not enough transparency in the stock market. European rules require the party bearing the economic risk of an investment to disclose its interest. In the U.S., whales such as Hwang can stay invisible.
Finding an extra $10 charge on your groceries is enough to make most people angry, but what if you paid twice for a a $56,000 car? Tesla buyers have been reporting that they’ve been double-charged on cars for recent purchases and have had trouble contacting the company and getting their money back, according to a report from CNBC and posts on Twitter and the Tesla Motors Club forum.
[…]
As of yesterday, the customers mentioned in the CNBC report have yet to receive their refunds and all have refused to take delivery until the problem is resolved. “This was not some operator error,” Peterson said. “And for a company that has so much technology skill, to have this happening to multiple people really raises questions.” Engadget has reached out for comment.
A tech CEO who lied to investors to get funding and then blew millions of it on maintaining a luxury lifestyle, which included private jets and top seats at sporting events, has been sentenced to just over eight years in prison.
Daniel Boice, 41, set up what he claimed would be the “Uber of private investigators,” called Trustify, in 2015. He managed to pull in over $18m in funding from a range of investors by lying about how successful the business was.
According to the criminal indictment [PDF] against him, investors received detailed financial statements that claimed Trustify was pulling in $500,000 a month and had hundreds of business relationships that didn’t exist. Boice also emailed, called, and texted potential investors claiming the same. But, prosecutors say, the truth was that the biz was making “significantly less” and the documentation was all fake.
The tech upstart started to collapse in November 2018 when losses mounted to the point where Boice was unable to pay his staff. When they complained, he grew angry, fired them, and cut off all company email and instant messaging accounts, they allege in a separate lawsuit [PDF] demanding unpaid wages.
Even as Trustify was being evicted from its office, however, Boice continued to lie to investors, claiming he had $18m in the bank when accounts show he had less than $10,000. Finally in 2019 the company was placed into corporate receivership, leading to over $18m in losses to investors and over $250,000 in unpaid wages.
As well as creating false income and revenue documents, Boice was found to have faked an email from one large investor saying that it was going to invest $7.5m in the business that same day – and then forwarded it to another investor as proof of interest. That investor then sank nearly $2m into the business.
Profligate
While the business was failing, however, Boice used millions invested in it to fund his own lifestyle. He put down deposits on two homes in the US – a $1.6m house in Virginia and a $1m beach house in New Jersey – using company funds. He also paid for a chauffeur, house manager, and numerous other personal expenses with Trustify cash. More money was spent on holidays, a $83,000 private jet flight to Vermont, and over $100,000 was spent on seats at various sporting events. His former employees also allege in a separate lawsuit that he spent $600,000 on a documentary about him and his wife.
Google will reduce the service fee it charges Android developers from 30 per cent to 15 per cent, though only on the first $1m in Google Play revenue.
[…]
Google’s change of heart follows a similarly structured fee abatement by Apple last year and lawsuits filed recently in the US, the UK, and Australia by Epic Games against both Apple and Google over their app store commissions and restrictions.
“Apple and Google demand that game developers use their payment processing service, which charges an exorbitant rate of 30 per cent,” Epic Games said in its announcement of its lawsuit in Australia. “Apple and Google block developers from using more efficient payment methods such as Mastercard (including Apple Card), Visa, and PayPal, which charge rates of 2.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent, and therefore prevent developers from passing the savings on to customers.”
[…]
Google’s Android revenue concession also arrives in the wake of federal and state antitrust lawsuits against the company and iOS app makers banding together to lobby against Apple’s platform limitations. In 2018, the European Union concluded Google had abused its control over the Android platform and fined the company €4.3bn ($5bn) for forcing hardware makers to pre-install Google apps in order to access the Google Play app store.
A PR move – follow the money
Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, dismissed the fee reduction as a public relations ploy.
“It’s a self-serving gambit: the far majority of developers will get this new 15 per cent rate and thus be less inclined to fight, but the far majority of revenue is in apps with the 30 per cent rate,” he said via Twitter. “So Google and Apple can continue to inflate prices and fleece consumers with their app taxes.”
According to app analytics biz Sensor Tower, iOS app makers earnings less than $1m account for 97.5 per cent of publishers but only 4.8 percent of the $59.3bn in the Apple App Store revenue between January 1 and October 31, 2020.
After years of aggressively fighting any efforts to force it to recognize its drivers as employees, on Tuesday Uber performed a U-turn on the streets of Britain and recognized all of its drivers as working for the company rather than serving as freelancers.
The change is the result of a court ruling last month that entitled workers to seek more pay and benefits but resisted classifying them as employees. That decision by the UK’s Supreme Court, making it definitive, was unanimous, and actively rejected Uber’s argument that it was just a technology platform that connected suppliers with customers. The court was having none of that, and decided that since Uber set the prices, connected drivers and passengers, and decided which route the drivers should follow, it was more employer than platform.
The ride-hailing app maker initially downplayed the legal loss, and argued the decision only directly benefited the handful of drivers in that specific case. However, experts pointed out that every other Uber driver in the UK could cite the ruling at a tribunal to demand what was owed to them, and reality has since dawned on Uber.
As such, Uber has complied with the court’s wishes, and said that its 70,000 UK drivers will henceforth be “workers” entitled to a minimum wage – £8.72 ($12.11) an hour – plus vacation pay, and a pension plan. The details are laid out in this filing [PDF] to America’s financial watchdog.
indie developer Jason Rohrer has added a new wrinkle by creating an NFT auction using artwork he commissioned from other people in 2012—long before NFTs were ever created.
NFT is short for “non-fungible token,” a cryptographic token that is, unto itself, one of a kind. NFTs have been tied to images, videos, and even basketball collectibles, with some selling for millions of dollars. The images and videos can exist anywhere—on Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, or what have you—and their original creators can still maintain rights to those works. So what people are really paying for is a token that they verifiably own, via blockchain technology. The value of these tokens is derived entirely from artificial scarcity. While NFTs have been around since 2017, they’ve skyrocketed in popularity in recent months, with (mostly) prominent, established artists cashing in on an unregulated speculative market that has attracted wealthy buyers in droves. It is also, as with many things related to the blockchain, an environmental catastrophe that is riddled with scams.
This week, Rohrer, creator of indie standout games like Passage, The Castle Doctrine, and One Hour One Life, debuted an NFT auction called “The Crypto Doctrine.” It’s a Dutch auction, meaning that prices start high and fall over time. It launched with 155 paintings that Rohrer originally commissioned in 2012 for use in The Castle Doctrine, a controversial game about home defense.
“Inside the game world, only one player can own each painting, but paintings can be stolen by other players through in-game burglaries, which are completely legal,” reads The Crypto Doctrine’s description. “In the real world, only one person can own each non-fungible painting token, but tokens can be stolen by other people through real-life burglaries, which are completely illegal. Please acquire your tokens responsibly.”
As of today, there are 145 paintings in the auction. This, Rohrer told Kotaku, is because three artists have gotten in touch with him asking to have their paintings removed, and he has complied.
Artists were surprised to see their works appear in The Crypto Doctrine, and others took umbrage on their behalf in the responses to Rohrer’s tweet about the auction. In an email, Rohrer told Kotaku that he did not ask permission to sell people’s works as NFTs “mostly because having email conversations with 50+ people would exceed my bandwidth as a solo creator.” Rohrer does not believe many of the paintings will sell, though he did say that people have placed bids on two of them. He added that if any works do sell, he will share the resulting windfall with their creators.
Originally, Rohrer obtained these works in 2012 from creators he characterizes as “personal friends and relatives.” For this reason, he says, there were “no written contracts” involved. The page he made requesting artwork at the time informed creators that “your artwork will be auctioned, bought, prized, collected, coveted, stolen, re-stolen, reclaimed by the state, and auctioned again. Over and over, for the effective life of my game.” Granted, this was in reference to in-game actions and auctions—not real-life ones.
When word reached voice actress and writer Ashly Burch, whose work is part of the auction, she had yet to hear of NFTs. After doing some research, however, she was not pleased to learn that her art was being sold in that form.
“I definitely did not consent to him selling the art as an NFT,” she told Kotaku in a DM. “I mean, it was years ago. And the understanding was that it would be a piece of art in the game. That’s it…Definitely did not foresee this particular development.”
“I am not a fan, to put it mildly, but am deeply opposed to the current trend towards artificial scarcity of digital objects, for numerous reasons,” Nealen told Kotaku in an email. “The fact that this selfish, techno-anarchist move is also causing unprecedented environmental damage-in a time when we need the opposite-just solidifies my stance…I couldn’t care less whether Jason ‘claims ownership’ over my (infinitely replicable) digital art. But you can see that, for me, being at all involved with the enormous scam and betrayal of humanity that the blockchain represents, that’s simply a step too far.”
After getting $500 per month for two years without rules on how to spend it, 125 people in California paid off debt, got full-time jobs and reported lower rates of anxiety and depression, according to a study released Wednesday. The program in the Northern California city of Stockton was the highest-profile experiment in the U.S. of a universal basic income, where everyone gets a guaranteed amount per month for free…
Stockton was an ideal place, given its proximity to Silicon Valley and the eagerness of the state’s tech titans to fund the experiment as they grapple with how to prepare for job losses that could come with automation and artificial intelligence. The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration launched in February 2019, selecting a group of 125 people who lived in census tracts at or below the city’s median household income of $46,033. The program did not use tax dollars, but was financed by private donations, including a nonprofit led by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes.
A pair of independent researchers at the University of Tennessee and the University of Pennsylvania reviewed data from the first year of the study, which did not overlap with the pandemic. A second study looking at year two is scheduled to be released next year. When the program started in February 2019, 28% of the people slated to get the free money had full-time jobs. One year later, 40% of those people had full-time jobs. A control group of people who did not get the money saw a 5 percentage point increase in full-time employment over that same time period.
“These numbers were incredible. I hardly believed them myself,” said Stacia West, an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee who analyzed the data along with Amy Castro Baker, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
The Stockton mayor who’d started the program told reporters to “tell your friends, tell your cousins, that guaranteed income did not make people stop working.”
Short sellers lost $664 million on Wednesday as GameStop shares spiked 104% in the final 30 minutes of trading, S3 Partners said.The stock’s 84% intraday gain on Thursday fueled another $1.19 billion in mark-to-market losses.
Uber drivers in the UK should be classified as workers and entitled to both paid vacation time and the minimum wage, according to a ruling Friday by Britain’s Supreme Court. But Uber’s London office is already disputing the scope and relevance of the ruling for its British drivers, insisting that its own rules have changed dramatically since the case was first brought by 25 drivers in 2016.
The UK Supreme Court ruling notes five reasons that Uber drivers should be classified as workers rather than independent entrepreneurs. First, the court pointed out that Uber drivers have no say in the amount charged for each ride—a number set by Uber. If Uber sets the price, how are they not the driver’s real employer?
Second, Uber sets the contract terms between riders and drivers through their app. Third, Uber constrains all drivers in their ability to accept and decline rides at will. Drivers are penalized if they decline too many rides, another point of fact that would make it pretty obvious Uber is an employer who’s holding all the cards in the employment relationship.
Fourth, Uber penalizes or bans drivers who don’t maintain a sufficiently high rating, another act more consistent with an employer-employee relationship. And lastly, Uber restricts the amount of communication between drivers and riders, something that wouldn’t be normalized if Uber drivers were really just working for themselves.
From the UK Supreme Court’s press release on Friday’s ruling:
Taking these factors together, the transportation service performed by drivers and offered to passengers through the Uber app is very tightly defined and controlled by Uber. Drivers are in a position of subordination and dependency in relation to Uber such that they have little or no ability to improve their economic position through professional or entrepreneurial skill. In practice the only way in which they can increase their earnings is by working longer hours while constantly meeting Uber’s measures of performance. The Supreme Court considers that comparisons made by Uber with digital platforms which act as booking agents for hotels and other accommodation and with minicab drivers do not advance its case. The drivers were rightly found to be “workers.”
A judge has ruled that Citibank can’t claw back more than $500m (£360m) it mistakenly paid out after outsourced staff and a senior manager made a nearly billion-dollar (£700m) user-interface blunder.The error occurred on August 11 last year, when Citibank was supposed to wire $7.8m (£5.6m) in interest payments to lenders who are propping up troubled cosmetics giant Revlon. But a worker at outsourcing mega-org Wipro accidentally checked the wrong combination of on-screen boxes, leading to the repayment of not only the interest but also the $894m (£640m) principal from the bank’s funds.Citibank has a “six-eyes” policy on massive money transfers of this type. In the Revlon fiasco, a Wipro worker in India configured the transfer using software called Flexcube, his local manager approved it, and Vincent Fratta – a Citibank senior manager based in Delaware, USA – gave the final OK for the transfer of funds, all believing the settings were correct.Below is a screenshot of the transfer set up by the first Wipro worker. He should have ticked not just the principal field but also the front and fund fields, and set their values to the necessary clearing account number. By leaving those two boxes unchecked and values empty – and wrongly assuming putting the account number in the principal field was a correct move – the entire principal of the loan, which was set to mature in 2023, was handed back to 315 creditors.UIIncomplete … The Flexcube interface for the infamous transfer. Click to enlarge. Source: US courts systemIt wasn’t until the next day that staff noticed the error, and sent out emails asking for the funds be returned – and hundreds of millions of dollars were. However, a group of 10 creditors refused to hand back their share the cash, amounting to more than $500m, leading Citibank to sue them in New York to recover the dosh.This week, the US federal district court judge presiding over that lawsuit sided with the lenders, saying [PDF] they had reasonable grounds to think that the transfer was legitimate and that they had legal grounds to keep their money.angry lego minifig man turns on anxious lego minifig manBarclays Bank appeared to be using the Wayback Machine as a ‘CDN’ for some JavascriptREAD MORE”The non-returning lenders believed, and were justified in believing, that the payments were intentional,” Judge Jesse Furman ruled.”Indeed, to believe otherwise — to believe that Citibank, one of the most sophisticated financial institutions in the world, had made a mistake that had never happened before, to the tune of nearly $1bn — would have been borderline irrational.”Since the amount sent back repaid the loaned amounts to the cent and no more, the judge ruled Citibank had no right to reclaim the money.”We are extremely pleased with Judge Furman’s thoughtful, thorough and detailed decision,” Benjamin Finestone, representing two lenders, Brigade and HPS Investment Partners, told CNN.That said, the saga isn’t over yet. The disputed funds are going nowhere, and are held under a temporary restraining order, to give Citibank a chance to challenge the ruling. “We strongly disagree with this decision and intend to appeal,” the mega bank said in a statement. “We believe we are entitled to the funds and will continue to pursue a complete recovery of them.”
Keith Gill, known as ‘Roaring Kitty’ on YouTube, allegedly duped retail investors into buying inflated stocks while hiding his sophisticated financial background.Mr Gill has downplayed his impact and rebutted claims he violated any laws.Separately, he will testify on Thursday to Congress about the “Reddit rally”.”The idea that I used social media to promote GameStop stock to unwitting investors is preposterous,” Mr Gill said in the prepared testimony.”I was abundantly clear that my channel was for educational purposes only, and that my aggressive style of investing was unlikely to be suitable for most folks checking out the channel.” GameStop: What is it and why is it trending? Real Wolf of Wall Street warns of GameStop losses Share buying mistakes ‘on the rise’Mr Gill allegedly bought GameStop shares for $5 (£3.60) and then used social media to drive shares from around $20 in early January to more than $400 in just two weeks.This violated securities laws against manipulating the market, according to the lawsuit filed by Christian Iovin, a Washington state resident who purchased GameStop stock options.Mr Gill said he used publicly available information to determine GameStop was undervalued, and shared this view with a “tiny” following on social media ahead of January’s huge price surge.The lawsuit also names as defendants Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co and its subsidiary MML Investors Services, which employed Mr Gill until 28 January.The company told Massachusetts regulators it was unaware of Mr Gill’s outside activities.Grilling from lawmakersA number of people involved in the so-called “Reddit rally” are due to appear before Congress on Thursday, including Mr Gill.Others called to testify include Wall Street hedge fund Melvin Capital, along with the chief executive of Reddit.media captionGameStop investors on a wild rideThe chief executive of Robinhood, the trading platform that restricted the purchases of GameStop shares to investors during the trading frenzy, is also expected to testify.The GameStop saga was hailed as a victory of the little guys against big Wall Street hedge funds that were betting against video games retailer GameStop and other struggling businesses.But it is unclear what role hedge funds had in the rally as some are reported to have made millions from the GameStop share rally, that was inspired by Reddit users.
The new rules formalise an earlier anti-monopoly draft law released in November and clarify a series of monopolistic practices that regulators plan to crack down on.
The guidelines are expected to put new pressure on the country’s leading internet services, including e-commerce sites such as Alibaba Group’s Taobao and Tmall marketplaces or JD.com. They will also cover payment services like Ant Group’s Alipay or Tencent Holding’s WeChat Pay.
The rules, issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) on its website, bar companies from a range of behaviour, including forcing merchants to choose between the country’s top internet players, a long-time practice in the market.
SAMR said the latest guidelines would “stop monopolistic behaviours in the platform economy and protect fair competition in the market.”
The notice also said it will stop companies from price fixing, restricting technologies and using data and algorithms to manipulate the market.
In a Q&A accompanying the notice, SAMR said reports of internet-related anti-monopoly behaviour had been increasing, and that it was facing challenges regulating the industry.
“The behaviour is more concealed, the use of data, algorithms, platform rules and so on make it more difficult to discover and determine what are monopoly agreements,” it said.
China will set up a new information platform to allow the public to track the emissions of polluting enterprises and help authorities prosecute those that break the rules or try to “evade supervision”, the environment ministry said.
A total of 2.36 million companies, industrial facilities and institutions in China are legally obliged to obtain permits to emit pollutants like sulphur dioxide or wastewater.
But China has struggled to collect the information required to make the system work, and has also faced obstruction and data fraud from some polluting firms.
According to the environment ministry, the new information platform will allow authorities and members of the public to monitor real-time emission levels and check historical data in order to determine whether rules are being breached. It is set to come into effect on March 1.
Late on Wednesday, a moderator of the popular Reddit message board WallStreetBets posted several screenshots on the chat app Discord. They showed that other moderators had quietly started talking among themselves about landing a movie deal.
“What’s our cut?” one of the moderators had asked in a Discord chat, according to the screenshots.
By Thursday morning, that quest for Hollywood riches had exploded into an ugly battle, giving a glimpse into the unruly nature of a suddenly famous Reddit community.
That was when the WallStreetBets moderators who were considering the film deal began booting out other moderators who had questioned them for secretly trying to profit from the forum’s success. Eventually, employees at Reddit weighed in to try to quell the unrest.
“Can you all discuss with me what is going on?” a Reddit employee with the screen name sodypop asked, according to screenshots of the conversation shared with The New York Times.
The WallStreetBets fight is the latest twist in the saga of an online army of investors who have roiled Wall Street over the past 10 days.
[…]
Over the last week, several top moderators, who have administrative control of the message board, met in a private chat room on Discord to discuss the business opportunities arising from their sudden fame.
One moderator said he was in touch with Ben Mezrich, an author of the book that became the movie “The Social Network,” who last week secured deals to write a book and help with a movie about the GameStop saga, according to screenshots from the forum shared with The Times.
“Oof we gotta go fast i think,” another moderator wrote back. “While the studios are competing.”
None of the six moderators The Times interviewed were willing to give their real names, but The Times verified the people were in control of the board’s moderator accounts.
The conversation heated up after Mr. Rogozinski announced that he had sold the rights to his own story to a movie studio this week. Mr. Rogozinski did not respond to requests for comment.
One longtime moderator of the group, known as zjz, saw the conversation and took issue. He posted images of the conversation in a broader chat room for all the moderators.
“We suddenly find out these formerly inactive moderators are trying to *literally* sell the story of how they built the subreddit and undermine us,” zjz wrote in an email to The Times.
In a post to WallStreetBets on Wednesday night, which was quickly removed, zjz also wrote: “We’ve been taken hostage by the top mods. They left for years and came back when they smelled money.”
That led to escalating recriminations and insults that soon went beyond a movie deal. Some began criticizing the top moderators for moves they had made to raise their profile, like creating a Twitter account and hiring a public relations representative. Some also made death threats.
Late Wednesday and early Thursday, the top moderators began removing lower-ranking moderators who were asking questions.
[…]
On Thursday afternoon, Reddit stepped in to remove the top WallStreetBets moderators. They put the moderators who had sided with zjz back in control, though zjz himself was not restored.
Mr. Cormier, who has been unemployed since March when he lost his job in a shop specializing in the game Magic the Gathering, said he was dismayed by the fighting on WallStreetBets.
I was confused, annoyed and sad trying to understand what had happened. I was removed by the senior moderator at r/wallstreetbets who is u/turdled . I messaged him asking for an explanation, but have still not been given one. It was at this same time that several other moderators were removed and getting banned left and right. I had some of my posts removed as well.
I was also starting to receive chat requests and messages from people seeing u/zjz‘s post and asking what was going on, and accusing me of being a rogue/plant mod.
I’ve been looking around the accounts of the mods of the new subreddit and these are indeed the old mods.
NB r/wallstreetbetsnew seems to be the Gamestonk holdout with the memes. r/wallstreetbetstest is where the “real” wsb crowds who aren’t solely obsessed with GME are hanging around.
If you want to know about the dark history and why the founder was kicked out, read here
tl;dr on tl;dr: Founder bad, greedy, got banned for being greedy. Being greedy again with new spotlight on the sub.
tl;dr, in 2020 the original founder (after being gone for years and did nothing to contribute to the sub), along with a couple of mods, attempted to monetize the sub for personal gains. Users and other mods fought back. Hundreds of users got mass banned for speaking out, mods who spoke out got removed as mods. With some help from users, mods found precedent of another sub creator getting banned for trying to monetize a sub and sent plea to Reddit admins. Reddit admins banned offenders and gave sub back to the good mods.
u/SpeaksInBooleans (RIP) investigated the circumstance of the events and made video exposing the offenders:
It’s important to know/remember this now, because the same person that got exiled for being a tyrant is doing a media circus, trying to ride the current spotlight for personal gain, again. Hey CNN and WSJ, stop interviewing that dipshit. The sub has always been about its people, and what you guys wanted to do (as retarded as you are). No single person speaks for the sub and controls its destiny. It is in good hands with u/zjz aka u/SwineFluPandemic
Amazon will pay a $61.7 million fine to settle allegations the company had failed to properly pay out tips to its Flex delivery drivers, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on Tuesday. The fine stems from a payment change the company implemented in late 2016. At the time, Amazon said Flex drivers, which use their own cars to deliver packages and groceries for Prime Now and Whole Foods, could earn $18 to $25 per hour, plus tips for their work. That same year, it put into place a new payment policy, which the FTC says Amazon did not properly disclose to drivers, that saw it pay Flex drivers a lower hourly rate. Over a timeframe of two-and-a-half years, it used the tips they earned to make up the difference between the rate it had promised and the one it was actually paying out.
According to the agency, not only did Amazon “intentionally” fail to notify drivers of its policy changes, it actively took steps to obscure them as well and used the tips drivers earned. The entire time it also continued to advertise Flex drivers could earn tips and $18 to $25 per hour. The company only went back to the previous payment model after it became aware of the FTC’s investigation in 2019.
Amazon announced on Tuesday that AWS CEO Andy Jassy will replace Jeff Bezos as CEO during the third quarter of this year. Bezos will transition to executive chair of Amazon’s board. In a statement, Bezos said: I’m excited to announce that this Q3 I’ll transition to Executive Chair of the Amazon Board and Andy Jassy will become CEO. In the Exec Chair role, I intend to focus my energies and attention on new products and early initiatives. Andy is well known inside the company and has been at Amazon almost as long as I have. He will be an outstanding leader, and he has my full confidence. This journey began some 27 years ago. Amazon was only an idea, and it had no name. The question I was asked most frequently at that time was, “What’s the internet?” Blessedly, I haven’t had to explain that in a long while. Today, we employ 1.3 million talented, dedicated people, serve hundreds of millions of customers and businesses, and are widely recognized as one of the most successful companies in the world. How did that happen? Invention. Invention is the root of our success. We’ve done crazy things together, and then made them normal. We pioneered customer reviews, 1-Click, personalized recommendations, Prime’s insanely-fast shipping, Just Walk Out shopping, the Climate Pledge, Kindle, Alexa, marketplace, infrastructure cloud computing, Career Choice, and much more. If you get it right, a few years after a surprising invention, the new thing has become normal. People yawn. And that yawn is the greatest compliment an inventor can receive.
Below is from the CNBC website. SLV spiked yesterday and some people will have you believe it’s the Gamestop buying and holding redditors from wallstreetbets that are pushing it. They are not. SLV is being pushed up by Capital Investments, the people the redditors are trying to destroy.
Below is a list of stories from CNBC – explicitly saying that redditors are going after this.
Just search the wallstreetbets subreddit, which is where the GME holders are concentrated
You will see loads of bots with almost no posts mentioning to buy SLV, NOC and others with people deriding them. But the main theme is absolutely to stay away from them and to hold GME, BB and AMC
For a good list of people running the redditors pursuing SLV misinformation (and thus in the pockets of the hedge funds), check out this reddit thread
Many online traders, feeling betrayed by Robinhood’s restrictions, have hit back with critical reviews of the app.
Google has removed tens of thousands of one-star reviews for the widely-used trading app – which had previously had a four-star average.
It says it takes action when it sees “fake ratings”, designed to manipulate a product’s average score.
But more one-star ratings – the minimum possible – have continued to appear.
While Robinhood stopped independent users from buying some shares after the surge in investment by independent traders, they still remained available to large, professional traders elsewhere- leading to accusations that Robinhood was effectively protecting big investors and manipulating the stock market.
Robinhood said that the restrictions were put in place for “risk-management” reasons – and not because it had been told to limit activity by anyone else.
The site reported that more than 100,000 negative reviews had brought the average rating from four stars down to just one.
Hours later, Google intervened to delete roughly 100,000 reviews, according to the review counter, restoring the app’s high rating.
image copyrightGoogle Play
Google rules are designed to prevent so-called “review bombing” – when reviewers co-ordinate to drag down an app’s rating, usually because of some external scandal or political disagreement.
It has not yet responded to requests to comment on its Play Store decision.
‘Unacceptable’
While there had been calls on social media to review Robinhood negatively, many investors feel they have a legitimate grievance.
Some users of the Reddit WallStreetBets community, which is at the centre of the movement, believe they are taking a principled stance against hedge funds short-selling the stocks, hoping the company will fail.
The concern is also reflected by some major US politicians from both parties.
This is unacceptable.
We now need to know more about @RobinhoodApp’s decision to block retail investors from purchasing stock while hedge funds are freely able to trade the stock as they see fit.
As a member of the Financial Services Cmte, I’d support a hearing if necessary. https://t.co/4Qyrolgzyt
Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said Congress should investigate Robinhood, calling the app’s decision to block small traders “unacceptable”.
