21–30 of 266 posts
Another possibility: the EU is serious and wants the content farm to show ads business model to die.
There are obviously some serious problems with ad-driven businesses on the net. But they have also done a lot to put technology in the hands of poor people. Any plans to replace them with paid-only services need to figure out some way to make them available to people on very limited incomes.
Policies like this make it glaringly obvious how little our government representatives around the world understand technology. It almost seems malicious, or at the very least anticompetitive. Who has access to such filtering systems already, or the resources to create one? GRPR regulations, while I absolutely realize their necessity, have made it difficult for me to expand my side business into the EU. This would jus…
You guys might be interested in my startup. We are going to provide a copyright content registration service as well as a vetting service for 3rd parties to upload user posts which are then scanned against the registered content.
Played right, this could offset some lost ad revenue.
I tend to put GDPR and this Copyright bill in different camps. The copyright bill is insane. GDPR is... also a bit insane, but the hard parts shine light on what we probably should have been doing which are now hard to do because we've spent so long ignoring the ethical elephant in the room. GDPR is very far from perfect, but I think it's still directionally good. The copyright bill is just bad.
Another possibility: the EU is serious and wants the content farm to show ads business model to die.
My theory is that, despite their rhetoric, the EU is actually okay with monopolies. Monopolies are easier to extract rents from, in the forms of fines and taxes. It seems like the EU would rather have a single Facebook, a single YouTube, a single Google, etc. than many competing smaller firms.
As with most interesting problems, this legislation hasn't been written with a focus on what sort of end-results are easiest to arrive at a technical solution for. This article characterises that as 'magic wand regulating' -- I'd hate to see an alternative where EU directives contain explicit technical implementation guidance!
There are multiple ways to create bad legislation. One is to require a specific solution, but another is to require a result that no known solution can produce.
Policies like this make it glaringly obvious how little our government representatives around the world understand technology. It almost seems malicious, or at the very least anticompetitive. Who has access to such filtering systems already, or the resources to create one? GRPR regulations, while I absolutely realize their necessity, have made it difficult for me to expand my side business into the EU. This would jus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are obviously some serious problems with ad-driven businesses on the net. But they have also done a lot to put technology in the hands of poor people. Any plans to replace them with paid-only services need to figure out some way to make them available to people on very limited incomes.
A few examples of what you are describing would be very welcome.
(At least, I think that's what parent was getting at, not saying I super agree with it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fairly sure this will mean more centralization as youtube will be the only one able to comply with the laws and everyone else will be locked out.
I'm fairly certain YouTube wasn't around when I traded external HDs full of movies/tv shows with my high school friends.
What these rules do is destroy user generated content. Because your external HD can hold every Hollywood blockbuster in the last five years but it's nowhere near big enough for all the user generated content on YouTube.