131–140 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you're a fan of individual liberty and don't like state controlled redistribution of wealth.
Redistribution of wealth is necessary to a certain extent, to prevent social inequality from growing. This is a fundamental goal of the German social state as defined by the constitution. If you don't like state controlled redistribution of wealth you should start a revolution or emigrate.
Step 1: Make Google pay for including you in search results. Step 2: Force Google to include you by demanding something like search engine neutrality.
Step 3: Google requires payment from German publishers to be included in the search index, exactly offsetting fees incurred in Step 1. It would be quite reasonable, I think.
Both Google and newspapers in Germany are glad from such resolution, only some naive young people complain about something. They're surely pirates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the problem here that the benefit is not directly visible? Same reason there is still no global agreement on a proceeding against global warming. There is no doubt that you need a functioning, diverse and independent press for a functioning democracy. So indirectly everyone (corporations as well) benefits from this institution. In germany we have a couple public tv stations which are financed through a fee ever…
You appear to be arguing that we should subsidize businesses for which the market rate for their product is virtually zero. The idea that what's in the interests of big media companies and their owners is somehow in the interests of the creative talent (think - do musicians outside a tiny number of stars have any negotiating position with record giants?) and that that is in turn somehow in the interests of society ju…
I would disagree. First of all, my parents dont know how to use twitter. But lets say thats just a generational problem which will solve itself over time. There is still another issue:
The signal to noise ratio on twitter is very low. To get a good information on, lets say the arab spring, I have to spend quite some time digging through many tweets to distill the relevant information. A not dismissible overhead. And even if I managed to find out all relevant tweets and managed to form a coherent image from those splinters of information (which could be hard because I may be missing relevant background information) I still dont know if I based my model on legitimate sources. Regimes knows just as well which power lies in the social media and are eager to spread false information and propaganda.
Of course, false information is a problem also existent with classical journalism, but to a much lesser degree. They build their reputation as a reliable source of information (especially abroad in very intransparent situations like the arab spring) over many years with a network of trusted correspondents.
Thats something which is very difficult to replace with social news mechanisms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would really like to like the pirate party but in their current state they are absolutely unvotable for me. This is one of their core topics but I havent heard anything from them yet. What I have heard is that the youth organizations of almost every party (yeah I know, including the young pirates) have voiced their concerns regardings the lsr.
That does seem strange. Any idea what is happening to them? Are they going through leadership change inside the party or policy change, since that last scandal with one of their female leaders?
On the last big conference for example there was a last minute petition for the further research of time travel. And it has to be discussed. Sure, it was dismissed relatively quickly and it was meant as a joke but those were 30 minutes lost for good.
Apart from that, and this is just my personal opinion, they are missing likable leading figures (a concept they dont really like). Head of the pirates Bernd Schloemer for example is more of a silent leader. One of the most famous pirates Christoph Lauer comes across as rude, uninterested and smug. A social behaviour 101 wouldnt be that bad for some of the members.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You appear to be arguing that we should subsidize businesses for which the market rate for their product is virtually zero. The idea that what's in the interests of big media companies and their owners is somehow in the interests of the creative talent (think - do musicians outside a tiny number of stars have any negotiating position with record giants?) and that that is in turn somehow in the interests of society ju…
>Twitter's coverage of the Arab Spring was better than any Western media in the early days... food for thought. I would disagree. First of all, my parents dont know how to use twitter. But lets say thats just a generational problem which will solve itself over time. There is still another issue: The signal to noise ratio on twitter is very low. To get a good information on, lets say the arab spring, I have to spend q…
I'm sure some lawmakers have heard of robots.txt, so what is their rationale?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Twitter's coverage of the Arab Spring was better than any Western media in the early days... food for thought. I would disagree. First of all, my parents dont know how to use twitter. But lets say thats just a generational problem which will solve itself over time. There is still another issue: The signal to noise ratio on twitter is very low. To get a good information on, lets say the arab spring, I have to spend q…
Tell folks who read the NYT in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, or people who watch Fox News - or any of the US mainstream media - that the traditional media has less misinformation.
To tackle the problem you describe its important to encourage critical thinking and to not rely on one newssource. And we need investigative journalists. And whistleblower. And social media. And luck.
Its very hard to counter governmental lies on such a big scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I don't lock my house, that doesn't give you the right to break in. You're absolutely right that publishers could make more use of the tools at their disposal to protect their content in whatever way they wish, but they have rights regardless of whether they do.
This analogy only muddles the picture. We are talking about private property, but not a home, more like a shop or pub. Its only raison d'etre is to serve certain guests. We are talking about a commercial server that is managed by a professional admin, and is explicitly open to only some of the public, and it already screens and filters guests, based on various criteria. For example, the server may disallow hotlinking…
That said, you're absolutely right: how hard can it be to block the Google News bot for a news organization? Not very. My point is merely that you can't draw any legal or moral conclusions from a 200 OK response, that's absurd.
To riff on your example, if my high-street shop has a sign that says "only people over 18" but doesn't have a bouncer, does that mean people under 18 should feel free to enter because nobody's physically stopping them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell folks who read the NYT in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, or people who watch Fox News - or any of the US mainstream media - that the traditional media has less misinformation.
Good point. I didnt say they were free from misinformation. Just that I know I can trust eyewitness reports from international correspondents more than I can trust a random twitter account. To tackle the problem you describe its important to encourage critical thinking and to not rely on one newssource. And we need investigative journalists. And whistleblower. And social media. And luck. Its very hard to counter gove…