Davedub

Is it just me that sees screwed up priorities here - the fact that the women were unaware and that they were posted online SHOULD be (by far and away) the most important element in this story. All this waffle about the morals and reputation of the Kingdom is quite frankly laughable, a complete joke. The fact this woman was filmed and it was posted online without her knowledge or permission should have been highlighted in the headline. As per usual, the perceived 'loss of face' is prioritised over the actual issue under discussion. From my Western mindset, it is a challenge to not judge this obsession with saving face as an immature reaction that distracts from what is really important.

Funny how they're short on resources when it comes to real crime, yet seem to have bottomless pockets for fighting the 'war on drugs' and turning otherwise peaceful protests violent using techniques like kettling. I'd argue they are not short on resources, they are simply missmanaging the ones they have. Their bosses are more interested in cowtoeing to politicians self-serving agendas than protecting the public from criminals.

So many numbers and stats - with zero context! These numbers would hold far more meaning if they were compared against accident rates outside the festive period

This legal concept really ought be revisited in this context. As I have pointed out, it's impossible for many people to spend literally days reading through every T&C that applies to them. Moreover, not having a digital presence is increasingly becoming a necessity rather than a luxury. So I think it's fair to say that people are increasingly pressured to click the 'I agree' checkbox when, in fact: a) They may not agree with the entirety of the T&Cs and b) They simply do not have the time to read through pages and pages of legalise and, given that legalise is actualy quite hard to understand and can be quite misleading if interpreted as regular English, they may not understand it anyway. Caveat emptor harks from a far, far simpler time in history. It is an outmoded concept in the digital age on account of impractability and potential corporate abuse.

Yep, good point. Whilst reading this thread it occured to me to try pasting T&Cs into an LLM and ask for analysis with a focus on anything that is not standard / boilerplate. That said, these LLMs do have a limit as to how much text they will accept as a prompt - and T&Cs are extraordinaly long, so it may not be possible.

I'm not sure you got the point - the point was that there are not enough hours in the day to read all the T&Cs we're subjected to if we want to function like everyone else in modern society. Consumer indolence is not always the cause, the sheer volume and opaqueness of T&Cs present consumers with real, insurmountable issues, especially for people in full time employment or raising kids. The abuse of this situation by companies sneaking unfair practices into their T&Cs is the issue here.

I'd say it's more a case of there are not enough hours in the day to read all the T&Cs we're all subjected to. I once saw a youtube documentary where this guy did an experiment. He tried to do his normal working week, but would not use any software or services until he'd read the T&C. By Wednesday, he was completely swamped and had more reading than he'd be able to do in a month. In short, it is pretty much impossible for anyone to read all of the T&Cs they agree to - and that's assuming they're able to read and understand what can often be quite opaque legalese. We are essentially forced to blindly digitally sign these T&Cs if we are to function in society like everyone else. These companies of course know this and some (like Lazada on this occasion) take advantage of the situation by sneaking in unfair terms like our money mysteriously 'expiring' if stored in a Lazada wallet, then shifting responsibility onto us for not having the time to read the T&C. That's on them, not us.

A good few years ago ordered a laser printer from Lazada for 15k. The order got cancelled after it wasn't shipped in time. The refund went to my Lazada wallet, where I left it thinking it was safe. A number of months later I went to use it and found my money had 'expired', apparently as per Lazada's terms and conditions. This I consider theft, regardless of it being technically legal because it was set forth in the terms and conditons. I have avoided using Lazada ever since.

There is a Thai Cyber Crime Investigation Division (https://ccid4.ccib.go.th/) Why did the police not refer the case to them? Are they unaware of the cyber crime division? Or was it more a case of apathy? Whatever the reason, this response by the police is an absolute disgrace. I sincerely hope there is significant public outrage and backlash against them.

If I had a penny for every time I've heard a Thai authority figure express those sentiments over the past 16 years... I wonder if anybody actually takes these sorts of announcements seriously?

Oh, the insanity of those that would repeat the same action over and over, each time expecting a different result. Drugs won the war on drugs, decades ago. Here I go again, banging the same old drum; education and mental health care have been proven to be the best measures to undertake in reducing drug harm. The Portugese experiment of many, many years now stands as proof of this. No well informed, mentally healthy person will knowingly cause themselves harm, period. Those that inflict drug harm on themselves do so either through ignorance or are driven to numb the pain of well defined, mostly treatable mental health issues. But no, those that base their policy making on twisted psudeo-moralistic values and a desire to appear 'tough' instead of using reason, logic and science are in charge. They will cause yet more harm by criminalising otherwise law abiding drug users and punish instead of offering help to drug abusers / addicts. Families will be broken up. Vast sums of money will continue to be funneled into the hands of powerful criminal enterprieses. A climate that encourages extra-judicial penalties and even killings will be engendered. Drug harm and addiction rates will continue to rise as they always do, regardless of how many 'assertive drug policies' have been put in place. Perhaps a better approach would be to investigate the reasons why mental health issues are increasiing year on year? I strongly suspect this would yield far greater results in the 'fight' against drug harm and addiction.

I wonder what is so remarkable about professionals being in attendence? Is the implication that gay people, swing party goers and drug users could not possibly be professional people? What a daft observation! One has to wonder what world these journalists live in, because it doesn't seem to be the real one!

An interesting and mildly amusing troll comment that I strongly suspect may say more about you than I...

Marriage is not something I'd ever consider: 1) 85% of divorces are initiated by women 2) Two out of three marriages fail in the first two years 3) In the UK (where I'm from) the courts do not have to recognise prenups 4) Courts invariably favour women in divorce proceedings Um - no thanks! Opinion: Why on earth anyone would voluntarily put themselves / their wealth in legal jeapoardy is beyond me. This archaic institution was borne of a time when men owned their wives, it is wholly inappropriate in the modern world.

The problem with the defamation laws is that they are enforcable even if what is said is true.